BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM. Date of filing : 24/07/2012 Date of Order : 31/05/2013 Present :- Shri. A. Rajesh, President. C.C. No. 451/2012 Between
M/s. Libran Tours & Travels, | :: | Complainant | Santhosh Mansion, Karuvelippady, Kochi – 682 0-05, Rep. by its Managing Partner, V. Madhu Ganesh. | | (By Adv. George Cherian, Karippaparambil Associates Advocates, H.B. 48, Panampilly Nagar, Kochi - 36) | And
M/s. Uco bank Ltd., | :: | Opposite Party | M.G. Road, Branch, Ravipuram, Cochin – 682 015, Rep. by its Branch Manager. | | (By Adv. Deepak Joy Kaliyadan, Keser's, Kaliyadan (H), Kaitharam. P.O., N. Paravur – 683 519. | O R D E R A. Rajesh, President.
1. At the threshold, the opposite party challenged the maintainability of this complaint in this Forum stating that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Since the Forum has no jurisdiction under the SARFAESI Act. In support of the above arguments, the learned counsel for the opposite party submitted the following decisions rendered by the Apex Judiciary : Mudivarthi Radha Krishna
Vs. The Branch Manager, Andhra Bank 2013 (I) CPR 260 (NC).M/s. M.I. Plywood Industries Vs. The Senior Branch Manager 2013 (I) CPR 151 (NC). Punjab National Bank Vs. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Alappuzha and Others 2011 (3) KHC 511.
2. Heard the counsel for the parties and went through the documents on record. According to the learned counsel for the complainant, this complaint has been preferred for the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in collecting excess amount from the complainant in the loan account. This Forum is not in agreement with the above argument of the complainant, especially since the Honorable High Court of Kerala in Punjab National Bank Vs. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Alappuzha and Others (Supra) has held in paragraph 10 as follows :- “The result of the above discussion is that the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain any complaint in respect of any measures taken by a Bank or a Financial Institution under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and the CDRF has no jurisdiction to give any relief whatsoever against the same. It is declared so.”
3. The Hon'ble National Commission in Sivsankar Lal Gupta Vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. & Ors. II (2013 CPJ 56 (NC) has taken the very same view.
4. In view of the above authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Judiciary, this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. In the above circumstances, the proceedings in this complaint stands dropped with a direction to the complainant to receive back the complaint and related documents to approach the appropriate authority, if so advised. Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 31st day of May 2013.
Forwarded/By Order, Sd/- A. Rajesh, President.
Senior Superintendent.
|
