Chandigarh

StateCommission

RP/36/2024

HDFC BANK LTD - Complainant(s)

Versus

MRS PARAMJIT KAUR - Opp.Party(s)

VAIBHAV SINGH TARA

26 Apr 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T. CHANDIGARH

[ADDITIONAL BENCH]

===========

Revision Petition No.	:	RP/36/2024
Date  of  Institution	:	16/04/2024
Date   of   Decision	:	26/04/2024

 

 

 

 

 

[1]   HDFC Bank Limited (wrongly mentioned as HDFC Bank in amended CC/15/2024 and as HDFC Housing Finance Corporation Limited in MA/16/2024), SCO 153-155, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh. Also at: SCO 33, 1^st Floor, Sector 41-D, Chandigarh.

 

…… Petitioner

 

V E R S U S

 

[1]    Mrs. Paramjit Kaur wife of Late Daya Ram, Resident of #34B, Sector 46A, Chandigarh – 160047. Presently, Residing at #503, Bishanpura, Zirakpur, District S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali).

 

…… Respondent

 

[2]    HDFC Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Lodha Excelus, 13^th Floor, Apollo Mills Compound, N.M. Joshi Marg, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai – 400011, through its Authorized Signatory or its Managing Director.

 

…… Proforma Respondent

 

BEFORE:   MRS. PADMA PANDEY       PRESIDING MEMBER

          PREETINDER SINGH        MEMBER

 

PRESENT

:

Sh. Vaibhav Singh Tara, Advocate for the Petitioner. Ms. Poonam Thakur and Sh. Ricky Verma, Advocates for Respdt.No.1. Ms. Monika Thatai, Advocate for the Respondent No.1.

 

PER PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

 

 

1.     Challenge in the present Revision Petition is to the order dated 05.04.2024 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh (for brevity hereinafter to be referred as the “Ld. District Commission”) in MA/16/2024 in CC/15/2024, whereby it disposed of the application filed by the Respondent/ Complainant for ad interim stay restraining the Opposite Parties not to get the house of the Complainant vacated from her and to clear/settle the insurance claim, by passing the following order:-  

“Taking into account the seriousness of situation faced by the Complainant, OPs are directed to restrain from taking action to get her house vacated by OPs from the Complainant during the pendency of present Complaint. Accordingly, Misc. Application No. 16 of 2024 stands disposed off.”

 

2.     The core question that falls for consideration is as to whether the Ld. District Commission has rightly passed the order impugned before us. 

 

3.     Having bestowed our anxious consideration to the matter, we are of the opinion that in the light of the material on record, answer to the question posed has to be in negative.

 

4.     We have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and also carefully perused the record with their able assistance.

 

5.     The backdrop of the case is that the Petitioner Bank had sanctioned and disbursed a loan of ₹22.50 lakhs to Respondent/ Complainant and her deceased husband during his life time to construct a dwelling unit on Plot No.187 at village Bishanpura, Tehsil Derabassi, District S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali and in order to secure aforesaid loan, they further requested the Petitioner Bank to provide additional financial assistance towards procuring an insurance policy from Respondent No.2 by way of a top up loan. As such, another top up loan of ₹1,46,212/- for insurance was sanctioned/ disbursed. Unfortunately, during the tenure of loan, husband of Respondent/Complainant expired on 06.06.2023, due to which loan accounts of Respondent/Complainant had been in default and stands classified as NPA, pursuant to which the Petitioner Bank resorted to recover said loans in accordance with law by issuing loan recall notice dated 28.02.2024. Instead of maintaining financial discipline qua the loans so availed from the Petitioner Bank, the Respondent/Complainant filed Consumer Complaint before the Ld. District Commission, inter alia, stating that the Respondent No.2 (Insurance Company) is liable to pay the amount due as the loan in question had been secured by an insurance policy taken by the deceased husband of Respondent/Complainant. Along with the above Complaint, Respondent/Complainant also filed MA/16/2024 and in that application the order dated 05.04.2024, which is impugned before us, as mentioned above, was passed.

 

6.     Record transpires that pursuant to notice, Petitioner Bank appeared on 22.02.2024 and filed written version and reply to MA/16/2024 on 14.03.2024. The demand notice dated 15.03.2024 under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 202 (“SARFAESI Act, 2002”) was issued and served upon the Respondent/ Complainant during the pendency of proceedings before the Ld. District Commission. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the fact regarding issuance of above said demand notice was also brought to the notice of the Ld. District Commission on 27.03.2024 as well as 05.04.2024, despite that it passed the impugned order in contradiction of statutory provisions of law, more specifically the SARFAESI Act, 2002, Section 34 whereof explicitly bars jurisdiction of Civil Courts/Tribunals/Authorities to adjudicate and/or grant stay qua action(s) initiated under provisions of the said Act.

 

7.     Now, the moot question which this court is required to consider is as to whether the Ld. District Commission was within its jurisdiction to stay recovery action of the Petitioner Bank in the light of provisions of Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, which reads as thus: -

 

"Civil Court not to have jurisdiction.- No Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which a Debts Recovery Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal is empowered by or under this Act to determine and no injunction shall be granted by any Court or other authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act or under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (51 of 1993)."

 

A bare perusal of the above extracted provision clearly shows it expressly bars the jurisdiction of not only civil courts but also other authorities (which would include Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions also) from granting injunction in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under the SARFAESI Act. The SARFAESI Act is a comprehensive law providing for all aspects relating to the subject dealt with by that legislation and the Act provides to persons aggrieved by measures taken under the Act a remedy by way of challenging the action taken under the Act before a quasi judicial authority, namely, the Debts Recovery Tribunal, with a right to file a further appeal before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, making the legislation a self contained one.

 

8.     To our mind, the Ld. District Commission cannot restrain financial institutions like Petitioner Bank from proceeding with an action taken under the SARFAESI Act as such power is expressly barred by Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act. In view of statutory provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 any remedy/adjudicatory power qua action taken by the Petitioner Bank under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act 2002 only lies with the Debts Recovery Tribunal. To cap it all, the Ld. District Commission is not empowered to arrogate to itself the powers which come within the jurisdiction of Debt Recovery Tribunals. This matter is purely covered within the jurisdiction of DRT or DRAT. If there is any grievance against the notice under Section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI ACT that should be brought to the notice of the concerned authority. Thus, the order impugned passed by the Ld. District Commission is liable to be set aside and the revision petition deserves to be allowed.

 

9.     In the result, the Revision Petition is allowed, and the decision dated 05.04.2024 of the Ld. District Commission, is set aside. We expect that the Ld. District Commission will decide the complaint expeditiously within a period of two months from today. However, in the peculiar set of circumstances, we deem it apposite to leave it to the wisdom of Respondent No.2 (Insurance Company) to expedite necessary action to clear/release the insurance claim of the Complainant, and this Commission can only express a sanguine hope that the grievance raised by the Respondent/ Complainant will be objectively and fairly considered.

 

10.     Parties are directed to appear before the Ld. District Commission-II, UT, Chandigarh on 02.05.2024, on which date, consumer complaint is already listed before it.

 

11.     Complete record of complaint file be sent back to the Ld. District Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh alongwith certified copy of this order, so as to reach there before the date fixed.

 

12.     The pending application(s), if any, stand disposed off accordingly.

 

13.     Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

 

14.     The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced

26^th April,2024

              Sd/-

                                  (PADMA PANDEY)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(PREETINDER SINGH)

MEMBER

“Dutt”