C.F. CASE No.: CC/2013/171

Order No. 09

Date 27.04.15

            The record is placed for order.  This is to consider an application filed on 24.03.15 by OP challenging the maintainability of the case on the ground that the complainant is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and he is a loanee borrower of the bank and he took a CC loan (Cash Credit Loan) depositing LICI policy.  It has been pleaded that the complainant is not a consumer of LICI as he has liened his policy in favour of the bank as security of the bank’s loan.  The bank has to proceed under SARFAESI Act to realize the policy money from the complainant.  Borrower and the guarantor violated the loan agreement as they did not pay the instalments/dues.  The request of the bank was not heard.  In support of the Ld. Advocate for the bank as prayed before us AIR 2010 Karnataka 12 and AIR 2012 Karnataka 8 in support of his contention that Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to try this case.  Perused Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act which acts as a bar against civil courts to have jurisdiction.

            In the written objection to the petition of the OP challenging the maintainability filed on 07.04.2015 at page No. 3, Para – 9, the complainant has admitted that he is not a consumer as he is a loanee-borrower of the Bank.  He has mentioned at the same Para- 9 that he is a consumer of LICI. 

            It is clear from his record that account of the complainant has been classified as N.P.A. with effect from 01.09.2007 as per direction and guidelines of RBI.

In view of the reported decisions this Forum has no power to declare the notice u/S 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act as illegal.  Consumer disputes involving deficiency in service a bank comes within the purview of Section 2 (O) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (AIR 2012 Karnataka 08) but prima facie it is not a case of deficiency in service as made out in the complaint.

            Hence, in view of the AIR 2010 Karnataka 12 we are inclined to hold that the Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction when the dispute has already come under SARFAESI Act.

            Thus, we are inclined to hold that the case is not maintainable.  No cost.