Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/239/2016

Bank of Baroda Through Shri O.P.Maheshwari Chief Manager - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manish s/o Suresh Kumr Vyas - Opp.Party(s)

Kushal Kumar Jain

01 Apr 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 239 /2016

 

Bank of Baroda regd.office at Mandvi, Baroda, Corporate office in Mumbai & ors.

Vs.

Shri Manish s/o Suresh Kumar Vyas r/o Jaisalmer Durg, Kotari Pada,Near Fort,Jaisalmer.

 

Date of Order 1.4.2016

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

Hon'ble Mr.K.K.Bagri-Member

Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Ranka -Member

 

Mr. Kushal Kumar Jain counsel for the appellant

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

 

This appeal has been filed against the order of the

 

2

 

learned District Forum,Jaisalmer dated 2.2.2016 whereby the District Forum has ordered in favour of the complainant-respondent that property deed which are mortgaged with the appellant bank should be released immediately and compensation and cost of proceedings are also allowed.

 

The contention of the appellant is that it was a commercial transaction between the parties hence, he was not covered under the definition of 'consumer' and further more the complainant himself with his consent has mortgaged the property hence, no deficiency has been committed by the appellant.

 

Heard the counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgment.

 

The first objection of the appellant is that the complainant is not a 'consumer' as he has allowed loan for commercial purpose has no foundation as admittedly the loan was given for self employment and implicitly it is clear that the respondent comes under the definition of 'consumer'.

 

 

3

 

The facts are not in dispute that the property of the father of the complainant was mortgaged with the appellants to have the bank loan. The contention of the appellant is that with his free consent he has mortgaged the property. Be that it may be the case, the guidelines and letter issued by the State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur to all its branches dated 23.9.2010 clearly goes to show that in MSME Sector loans upto Rs. 10 lakhs should have been sanctioned without collateral security and the letter was issued in pursuance of guidelines of Reserve Bank of India. Hence, the letter dated 23.9.2010 clearly reveals that the appellant was deficient in service and there was no occasion for them to ask for collateral security when there was a specific guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India denying the same. The non-compliance of the guidelines of Reserve Bank of India is deficiency in service and the Forum below has rightly allowed the relief to the respondent-complainant. Hence, the appeal is meritless and liable to be rejected.

 

It is very unfortunate that the public sector bank has acted devoid the guidelines of Reserve Bank of India and when a justified order has been passed by the Forum below, he has dare to come up in appeal which clearly shows that the intention of

 

4

 

the bank is just to harass the complainant-respondent. Hence, this appeal is dismissed with Rs. 5000/- as cost.

 

(Sunita Ranka) (K.K.Bagri) (Nisha Gupta )

Member Member President

 

 

nm