This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
Complainant by filing this complaint has submitted that complainant intended to take loan for the purpose of acquiring residence of property on the 4th floor, in Block No.1 situated in the Space Town Housing Complex along with his family members and applied for a loan dated 26-11-2001 for Rs.13,30,000/- and accordingly as per agreement complainant agreed to mortgage in respect of the property and deposited certain documents including title deed in respect of the secured property. Complainant was required to pay equity monthly instalment(EMI) of Rs.16,654/- each for 180 months from 18-10-2002 as per said loan agreement.
Accordingly, complainant paid EMI continuously without any interruption for 12 years and regularly raised his objection over certain terms and condition which was regularly changing time to time.
Subsequently, complainant charged exorbitant M.V.R.R.(Mortgage Variable Reference Rate) of interest instead of the pricing grid of interest as formulated by the OP in its pricing rate policy.
In fact OP oppressed the complainant by the Economic Plunder by charging high rate of interest at the rate14 percentfrom 8 percentas per Agreement and being dissatisfied complainant had applied for reasonable and justified rate of interest.
Complainant’s home loan (variable/floating rate of interest category) in the year 2002 and the reference rate was the base rate of the bank which made them to lower the chargeable interest rate as low as 7.25 percentp.a. in the year 2004 and ultimately complainant filed complaint before banking authority and after a decade OP offered the complainant the option of choosing to go with the base rate vide their letter 05-03-110743/SAP dated 06-06-2013 against that complainant reminded the OP to rectify the same but they neglected to answer the queries to solve out the problem and that is their policy not to solve the problem.
Specifically complainant made met Mr. Harpeet Singh in the year 2002 at his office in New Delhi who passed an order in writing and the order is a guideline to set the changeable interest rate for this loan whenever there shall not be any harassment throughout loan period and he also assured the complainant that complainant shall have to get relief. But bank replied by its letter dated 14-02-2002 and 29-09-2011 that bank wrongfully was charging high rate of interest and committed to refund the excess price charged by adjustment to the complainant’s account and once it was done but it was too small amount amounting to Rs.3,844-30 but again same mistake was practiced by the bank and again after a long discussion the OP again accepted to refund a sum of Rs.54,159/- but it was not credited to the complainant’s account in spite of repeated reminder. Specifically, OP in their letter dated 01-09-2013 has claimed that it is not true that the entire loan is at floating/variable rate which is reviewed and revised from time to time basis. It is a false and misleading statement. The rates are revised based on the mortgaged variable reference rate since 2005 and the change in the reference rate along with the chargeable rate was never intimated to the complainant as per the RBI Guideline. Therefore, having no relief and getting no alternative way complainant compelled to move this Forum for relief.
On the other hand, OP by filing written version submitted that for breach of the terms and condition of the said loan agreement and for defaulting in payment of EMIs due and payable by the complainant to the bank and as per such agreement the said account has been declared as non-performing asset on 18-06-2014 in pursuance to the guideline with respect to asset classification of the RBI and for which a notice u/s.13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 served to the complainant vide letter dated 05-07-2014 and that was received by the complainant and complainant was asked to pay that amount and for disposal of the same and he was also asked to meet authorized officer of the Standard Chartered Bank as per SARFAESI Act but complainant did not pay any heed and did not meet to any officer as per SARFAESI Act and did not purchase any document or any attention before the said authority to raise his demand or to place his grievance and when that proceeding has already initiated and complainant get such chance then the present proceeding is not maintainable and further it is submitted that the entire allegation as made by the complainant is false and fabricated and moreover rate of interest was notable floating interest and further it is submitted that there was no fault on the part of the OP and the allegations are baseless and complainant ought to have alleged the grievance in connection with recovery measures taken by the OP and as because complainant failed to liquidate the dues of the OP Bank in respect of the said notice the present complaint is completely not maintainable and moreover it is submitted that u/s.34 of the SARFAESI Act there is an express bar of jurisdiction of civil court or authority to entertain any suit or proceeding in any manner over which the Debt Recovery Tribunal or Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal has jurisdiction and all other allegations are denied by the OP and prayed for dismissal of the case.
Decision with Reasons
On proper study and verification of the complaint and the written version and also the arguments of both the parties it is gathered that the complaint was filed on 27-10-2014 but fact remains before that complainant in the month of July, 2014 received a notice u/s.13(2) of the SARFAESI Act from the OP’s authority under SARFAESI Act and by that letter complainant was asked to submit his submission regarding that non-performing assets as on 18-06-2014 and truth is that OP sent a letter prior to that for adjustment of certain amount as there was some arrear for assessing the interest but complainant ought to have agitated that matter before the said authority under SARFAESI Act but he did not raise his objection and when prior to filing of this other proceeding under SARFAESI Act was started as per Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act, this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint when that is the legal position and settled principle as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in so many cases we are convinced to hold that at the time of admission this complaint ought not to have been admitted that as there was legal bar u/s.34 of the SARFAESI Act and when that is the fact then this Forum has no authority to decide in any part of the complaint as alleged by the complainant in this proceedings but the entire dispute must be decided by that Nodal Officer of SARFAESI Act and if complainant is dissatisfied with the Nodal Officer’s verdict complainant may file such application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal as per provision of SARFAESI Act.
In the light of the above observation we are convinced to hold that this Forum has no jurisdiction to decide the complaint and practically this complaint is not maintainable in the eye of law as per 34 of the SARFAESI Act.
Hence,
Ordered
That the case be and the same is dismissed on contest but without any cost against the OP.
