Date of Filing :20.09.2024

 Date of Disposal :23.09.2024

BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)

DATED:23.09.2024

PRESENT

Mr K B. SANGANNANAVAR: JUDICIAL MEMBER

(DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE (R)

Mrs DIVYASHREE M: LADY MEMBER

APPEAL No.2527/2024

The Chief Manager

State Bank of India

J.P.Nagar Branch

No.1104, 24^th Main Road

1^st Phase, J.P.Nagar

Bangalore-560 078

(By Mr J Sathish Kumar, Advocate)                                Appellant

                                                     -Versus-

1. Smt.K.Roopa

    Aged about 45 years

    Wife of Late S.Umesh

    Residing at No.17, 6^th Cross

    Opp. 43A Last Bus Stop

    Kathriguppa Main

    Vivekananda Nagar

    Bangalore-560 085

2. ARCIL ARM

    Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd.,

    Kedia Arcade, Unit No.305

    III Floor, No.92, Infantry Road

    Banalore-560 001

    Represented by Sri Mohan Kumar

    Senior Resolution Councillor                                     espondents

-:ORDER:-

Mr. K B. SANGANNANAVAR: JUDICAL MEMBER:

1.       This is an Appeal filed under Section 73 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 by J.Dr No.1 aggrieved by the Order dated 13.06.2024 passed in Execution Application No.49/2023 arising out of Award in CC No.11/2013 on the file of IV Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru (for short, the District Commission).

2.       The Parties to this Appeal will be referred to their rank assigned to them by the District Commission.

3.       This Appeal is set to hear on Admission. The Commission examined the grounds of Appeal, impugned order and heard learned counsel for Appellant/J.Dr No.1.  Learned counsel submits, District Forum in Consumer Complaint No.11/2013 directed OPs 1 and 2 to close the loan account of deceased husband of complainant and to hand over NOC and return all the original documents, deposited by complainant at the time of availing loan and held OPs are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.30,000/- for unfair trade practice or rendering deficiency in service and held Rs.20,000/- towards litigation costs. 

4.       Learned counsel for Appellant/J.Dr No.1 submits, pursuant to  the award  Rs.25,000/- was paid through Banker’s Cheque in favour of Smt.K.Roopa, on 12.12.2023 and a similar such account payee cheque was paid in her name for Rs.25,000/-. In this regard she had passed two receipts, which could be seen from Page 41 to 43 and on 05.07.2024 J.Dr No.1 had addressed a letter to Smt.Roopa K informing her as per order passed in CC No.11/2013 dated 30.06.2020, requested her to treat this letter, as NOC towards the loan availed by her husband and thereby the loan account was closed by getting the amount from ARCIL.  It is to be noted herein that ARCIL is none other J.Dr No.2 and in EA 49/2023 on 13.06.2024 the Executing Commission ordered to issue NBW against J.Drs 1 and 2 i.e., not only against ARCIL but also against Appellant/Jdr.1 which has to be decided in this appeal.

5.       Learned counsel for Appellant submits in EA 49/2023, a statement of objections to main Petition is filed by J.Dr No.1, wherein, in Para 5 submitted, that J.Dr No.1, in view of Execution Assignment Agreement dated 20.02.2015, the J.Dr No.1 has lost its control over the recovery suit as well the custody of original documents in respect of complainant’s loan could be acceptable, since this fact was also within the knowledge of D.Hr as per letter dated 26.11.2014.  In such circumstances, in our view the J.Dr No.1 has no control over J.Dr No.2 to get comply the order of the Forum, was not rightly perceived by the Executing Commission. It is also found from the file as J.Dr No.1 had also made an efforts to co-ordinate with the J.Dr. No.2 vide letter dated 31.08.2023 to comply the order of the Forum.  It is therefore, considering this statement of objections, filed in EA No.49/2023, in our view, issuance of NBW against J.Dr No.1 has to be held unsustainable is liable to be recalled. 

6.       Learned counsel for Appellant herein submits that as per page 45 document J.dr No.2 had received the original documents on 27.12.2012 and when J.Dr No.1 Bank submits to co-ordinate with J.Dr No.2 to secure original documents, issuance of Arrest Warrant against J.Dr No.1 could be held not justified. In other words, Executing Commission has to see that original documents, shown to be in the custody of J.Dr No.2, could have been considered before issuance of arrest warrant against the appellant herein.  In such view of the matter, we dispense with issuance of notice against Respondent No. 1 and 2 to avoid further delay and expenditure, proceed to allow the Appeal and Consequently, set aside the order dated 13.06.2024 passed in EA No.49/2023 in so far as J.Dr No.1 is concerned.  Accordingly, Appeal stands disposed of.

7.       Send copy of this Order to the District Commission and the parties concerned for their information.

                Lady Member                    Judicial Member

*s