Jharkhand

Bokaro

CC/5/2023

Mukund Mandal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager, Union Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

18 Jul 2023

ORDER

                District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bokaro

Date of Filing-17-01-2023

Date of final hearing-18-07-2023

 Date of Order-18-07-2023

Case No. 5/2023

Mukund Mandal S/o Lt. Kunj Mandal

R/o Village- Kashijharia, P.O.- Kashijharia,

P.S.- Pindrajora, Bokaro, 827013

                                      Vrs.

          Branch Manager, Union Bank of India,

           Branch Kandra, Chas, Bokaro 

Present:-

                             Shri Jai Prakash Narayan Pandey, President

                  Smt. Baby Kumari, Member

PER- J.P.N Pandey, President

-:Order:-

1. Complainant’s case in brief is that he purchased Maruti Suzuki Super Cary Vehicle bearing registration No. JH09AN-5692 after taking loan of Rs. 3,90,000/- from Union Bank of India, Kandra Branch  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 meanwhile complainant received notice dt. 05.10.2020 and 12.04.2021 from the Bank for deposit of Rs. 11,330/- and Rs. 31,728/- however complainant deposited Rs. 5,000/- only. Thereafter, complainant failed to pay the installment amount then O.P. Bank again sent a letter dt. 07.05.2022 in which Rs. 3,35,283/- was shown dues to be deposited, later on O.P. Bank seized the vehicle on 03.06.2022, hence there was no source of income to the complainant, who failed to pay the installment amount to the Bank. Further case is that O.P. has not given details of the loan rather vehicle of the complainant has been forcibly taken away by the Bank. Hence this case has been filed with prayer to direct the O.P. to return the vehicle to the complainant.
2. As per O.P.,  Bank has sanctioned loan of Rs. 3,90,000/- in the name of the complainant for purchase of the vehicle and loan account became NPA on 31.12.2021. 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 vehicle  has been auctioned on Rs. 1,90,000/- and still there is due of Rs. 1,73,597/- 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.
3. Now, point for determination is whether complainant is entitled to get relief as claimed?
4. On perusal of the evidence produced by the complainant it is apparent that notice dt. 12.04.2021 , 21.08.2021  and 07.05.2022 have been dully served by the Bank on the complainant and complainant has filed its photo copies  as Annexures- 3, 4, & 5 of the complaint petition  showing that in respect to loan amount related to vehicle concerned  there was dues of Rs. 3,08,299.64/- and Rs. 26,984/-  on 30.04.2022 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.
5. In the result, case is being dismissed with cost. However complainant may take other legal recourse as per the provisions of SARFAESI Act.

 

Sd/-

(J.P.N. Pandey)

                                                                                      President

 

 

          Sd/-  

                                                                               (Baby Kumari)

                                                                                       Member