Amit Kumar Ray filed a consumer case on 14 Jul 2023 against Branch Manager India Bank in the Bokaro Consumer Court. The case no is CC/106/2022 and the judgment uploaded on 14 Jul 2023.
Jharkhand
Bokaro
CC/106/2022
Amit Kumar Ray - Complainant(s)
Versus
Branch Manager India Bank - Opp.Party(s)
B.K. Tiwary
14 Jul 2023
ORDER
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bokaro
Date of Filing-23-06-2022
Date of final hearing-14-07-2023
Date of Order-14-07-2023
Case No. 106/2022
Amit Kumar Ray S/o Hans Nath Ray
R/o Nikat Bazar Samiti, Mahato Mohalla,
Gurudwara Road Chas, P.O. and P.S. Chas, District- Bokaro
Vrs.
Branch Manager India Bank, Branch Gurudwara,
Guru Singh Sahab Chas, P.O. and P.S.- Chas, District- Bokaro
Present:-
Shri Jai Prakash Narayan Pandey, President
Shri Bhawani Prasad Lal Das, Sr.Member
Smt. Baby Kumari, Member
PER- J.P.N Pandey, President
-:Order:-
Complainant’s case in brief is that he purchased Ashok Leyland Truck bearing registration No. JH10BD-1885 after taking loan from Indian Bank and he has also purchased Maruti Suzuki Four Wheeler bearing registration No. JH09AG-8579 after obtaining loan from said bank and was paying the loan installment regularly, however during the Covid-19 pandemic he could not paid the loan installment amount timely. Further case is that on 02.07.2021 said truck met with an accident due to it complainant failed to pay the installment amount then O.P. Bank seized the truck hence there was no source of income to the complainant who failed to pay the installment amount to the Bank. Further case is that bank is not agree to return the truck to the complainant rather they are also adamant to take car also. Inspite of issuance of legal notice no action was taken hence this case has been filed to accept this petition and pass necessary order against the Bank concerned.
As per O.P., Bank has sanctioned loan in the name of the complainant for purchase of the vehicles and loan account became NPA on 30.04.2021 and 25.01.2022 respectively. Hence as per provision of section 13 of SARFAESI Act 2002 after fulfilling the pre requisite conditions under section 13 of that very Act said truck has been auctioned on Rs. 10,80,000/- and still there is due of Rs. 29,88,896/- towards the complainant with further interest there on. Hence it is replied that all the actions of the O.P. Bank are in accordance with the provisions of law and this Commission is having no jurisdiction to entertain this case.
Now, point for determination is whether complainant is entitled to get relief as claimed?
On perusal of the evidence produced by the complainant it is apparent that notice dt. 01.02.2022 and 18.02.2022 have been dully served by the Bank on the complainant and complainant has filed its photo copies showing that in respect to loan amount related to truck there was dues of Rs. 22,19,789.63 on 01.02.2022 and there was dues of Rs. 3,70,288.67 on 01.02.2022 in respect to car loan, hence as per provision of law related to Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 ( in short SARFAESI Act) Bank concerned has acted and taken action accordingly. Therefore, we are of the view that this Commission is having no jurisdiction to decide the legality of the action taken by the Bank under SARFAESI Act, rather proper authority under the said act is DRT before whom legality of the action taken by the O.P. can be challenged. Hence we are of the opinion that complainant is not entitled to get relief as prayed accordingly this point is being decided against the complainant.
In the result, case is being dismissed with cost. However complainant may take other legal recourse as per the provisions of SARFAESI Act.
S/d
(J.P.N. Pandey)
President
S/d
(B.P.L Das)
Sr. Member
S/d
(Baby Kumari)
Member
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.