24/07/15

HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. KALIDAS MUKHERJEE, PRESIDENT

            This Revision Petition is directed against order no.16 dated 11/06/13 passed by Learned District Forum, Kolkata, Unit-I in case no.CC 396 of 2011 rejecting the petition filed by the OP challenging the maintainability of the complaint case. 

            The Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner has submitted that CC 396 of 2011 was filed by the Complainant stating that he had current account and took demand loan.  It is contended that the Bank proceeded under the provisions of Recovery of Debts due to Bank and Financial Institution Act, 1993 and a case bearing no.OA 93 of 2004 was filed wherein the Complainant appeared.  It is contended that the Consumer Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint because of the pendency of OA 93 of 2004 before DRT. 

            The Learned Counsel for the Respondent/Complainant has submitted that the Complainant took demand loan by depositing 27 LIC policies as security which were encashed, but no refund was made by the Bank.  It is contended that it was a demand loan and the schedule of the property has not been filed.  It is contended that the case before DRT was dismissed and there is nothing to show that it has been restored. 

            The Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner has referred to the decision of the Hon'ble National Commission in FA 372 of 2007 [Indian Overseas Bank vs. Shri P. S. Bawa & Anr.] wherein it has been held that the Consumer Forum had no jurisdiction in respect of the dispute between the parties which was covered by Recovery of Debts due to Bank and Financial Institution Act, 1993 and the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. 

            We have heard the submission made by both sides and perused the papers on record.  Admittedly, OA No.93 of 2004 was filed before the DRT.  In the averment made in paragraph 4(a) of the petition challenging the maintainability of the case it has been mentioned that the Complainant appeared in the said case before the DRT.  Since the case was filed before the DRT, relying on the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble National Commission, we are of the view that the petition of complaint was not maintainable before the District Forum.  The Learned District Forum committed material irregularity in passing the impugned order.

            Revision Petition is allowed.  We set aside the impugned order.  The petition of complaint is dismissed.