Dated:13.01.2022

ORDERS REGARDING MAINTAINABILITY OF THE COMPLAINT

Perused the complaint and also documents filed.  The complainants have themselves stated that they are the directors of  Traegen Systems Pvt. Ltd. Complainant No.1 is also the GPA holder of some immovable property and OP coerced him to deposit his original documents of the property for extra collateral and also further warned by the OP that if they do not deposit the document, they would recall the credit limits extended to the company. This is in the year 2017.  On 22.03.2019 the credit facilities were sanctioned as SIBML term loan and the proceeds were distributed to the personal accounts of the directors of the company i.e. Complainants which are to be routed to the company.  By this the OPs made complainant as borrowers for the debts of the private limited company and according to the complainants the said routing of the loan to the limited company is against to the provisions of the companies Act.  One Rajashree Sarkar Manager of the Bank coerced the complainant to issue cheque from his personal account with another bank in favour of the account of the company and the cheque issued by him for Rs.33,93,182.30 was discounted. The complainants has mentioned many of the transaction that had taken place.  It is also mentioned that OP has played fraud on the complainants by incorporating fraudulent and false statement in the documents No.5 and 6. The act of OP making the complainant liable for the loan private limited is oppose to public policy and an unfair trade practice.

In the complaint he has sought for return of Rs.1,06,200/- paid by the complainants towards loan processing charges. Rs.9,873 towards booking the flight tickets Rs.40,00,000/- towards mental agony and damages for each of the complainant and Rs.1,00,000/- towards the cost of the litigation.

Upon going through the documents are produced a term of loan of Rs.97,00,000/- have been sanctioned. It is for the purpose credit facility  business purpose and funds to be used for the purpose of investing in M/s Traegen Systems Pvt. Ltd., the terms and conditions and agreement for the loan has also been signed by the complainants. 

From the complaint, it is not forthcoming as to what exactly the deficiency in service on the part of OP.  Sanctioning of the loan to the individual name of the complainant cannot be termed as unfair trade or deficiency in service. In case the complainants are of the opinion that they have been cheated or fraud has been played on them, or they have been coerced by the OP while sanctioning the loan amount, or while releasing the said amount the said facts cannot be decided by this Commission as the procedure adopted i.e. summary procedure.  The contentions raised by the complainants in the complaint are complicated and requires a full fledged trial before the competent Civil/Criminal Courts.  Further in the sanction letter itself, it is mentioned that a sum of Rs.97,00,000/- is being sanctioned for carrying out the business purpose for the funds to be used for investing in M/s. Traegen Systems Pvt. Ltd., When such being the case, the purpose of loan is for business purpose and hence this complaint do not fall under the Consumer Protection Act. In this regard, the decision relied on by the complainant i.e. 1995 3 SCC 583 Lakshmi Engineering Works Vs PSG Industrial Institute and also Crompton Greaves Limited Vs. Daimler Chrysler India Pvt. Ltd. Is no way helpful to the complainant.

Further the complainants have fled an application on 10.01.2022. stating that this complaint was filed 26.11.2021 and complainant appeared on 03.12.2021 and the case was posted to 04.12.2021 and arguments were heard and written arguments were filed. He came to know from the registry of the office that no order regarding admissibility passed even on 06.01.2022. The commission has to decide the admissibility of the complaint within a period of 21 days and hence the said period expired on 17.12.2021, and hence as per the provisions of 36(2) of the CP Act it is to be considered as deemed to have been admitted. Hence prayed the commission to admit the complaint.

As per Section 36(2) on receipt of the complaint made under Section 35 the District Commission may by order admit the complaint for being proceed with or reject the same provided that a complaint shall not be rejected under this Section unless an opportunity of having been heard is been given to the complainants. Provided further that the admissibility of the complainants shall ordinarily be decided within 21 days from the day on which the complaint was filed. Where the district commission does not decide the issue of admissibility of the complaint within the period so specified it shall be deemed to have been admitted.  Under these deemed provision the complainants wants to submit that the complaint to be admitted. Though it is stated so when the complaint has been heard on the admissibility of the complaint due to the pressure of work the same could not be decided. It is not the intention of the legislature is not that the complaint should be automatically admitted. The earlier provision provides that  regarding admissibility that the complaint ordinarily be decided within 21 days from the day on which the complaint was filed.  In view of this, when the case is already posted for orders the deemed provision is not applicable. Hence we pass the following:-

ORDER

The complaint is not maintainable before this commission and the same ordered to be returned to the complainant to present the same before Civil Courts. Office is hereby directed to return all the documents to the complainants.

MEMBER                 PRESIDENT