Judgment : Dt.5.1.2018

Shri S. K. Verma, President.

            This is a complaint made by one Smt. Shikha Sarkar, w/o Mr. Bhajan Sarkar, 1/58, Jadavgarh, Madhya Garfa, Kolkata-700 078 against The Branch Manager, United Bank of India, 24, Raja S.C.Mallick Road, P.S.-Jadavpur, Kolkata-700 032, OP No.1 and United Bank of India, Regional Office, 627/2, 619/1, Diamond Harbour Road, Behala Manton, Arcadia Behala, P.S.-Behala, Kolkata-700 034, OP No.2 praying for a direction upon the O.P. not to seize the vehicle but to come for amicable settlement between the parties after the settlement of the debts or go for legal action through the SARFAESI Act 2002 and RDDB Act, 1993 in Debts Recovery Tribunal (D.R.T.), Kolkata.

            Facts in brief are that Complainant Mrs. Shikha Sarkar, being the borrower and a house-wife was sanctioned Rs.11,00,000/- in 2014 for financing a vehicle loan, (Mini Bus No.WB-19E/8563) under credit guarantee fund trust for micro and small industries. Against this loan, the Complainant repaid a substantial amount almost to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- and she has been paying till date. Complainant is very much eager to pay the rest of the amount. But, she was not furnished proper statement of accounts. The Bank authority has failed to comply the principles of fairness in dealing with the borrowers as they did not appraise the borrower the reasons for not accepting objection or points raised for re-schedulement of debts. Bank authorities have duty to communicate the borrower the reasons overruling the objections of the borrower. The Complainant went under medical treatment and incurred huge financial loss. Complainant’s bus service business is under stress as passengers are not available. Also the fuel prices have increased. Actually, the scheme was meant for common people for an alternative employment by the Government and it is clearly stated in the scheme that the loan is guarded by the Government if the borrower fails to pay the balance dues. The Bank officials threatened Complainant with dire consequences if the rest is not paid within seven days. Such act of the Bank is unlawful. So, Complainant filed this case. Complainant has also mentioned certain decisions in his complaint petition which is not desirable.

            OP filed written version and denied the allegations of the complaint. Further, OP Bank has stated that loan of Rs.11,89,000/- was sanctioned on 25.7.2011 for purchasing a passenger carrying vehicle. On execution of necessary banking documents including hypothecation cum loan agreement, the loan was disbursed as per terms of sanction. It was also agreed that in the event of any default the borrower undertakes to handover possession of the securities charged and Bank is entitled to sell them and recover its dues. OP again requested the Complainant to regularize the loan but she did not do so. Thereafter, OP sent two letters on  19.12.2016 and 29.12.2016 advising the Complainant to pay the installments which stands Rs.10,01,005/- including interest. OP, Bank would be compelled in taking possession of the vehicle. Further, the OP has stated that the transaction between the parties are commercial in nature and the Bank is duty bound to act in accordance with law to recover public money and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the case with cost.

            OP has also filed a petition stating to treat written version as their evidence.

            Further, this OP has stated that this complaint is not maintainable, there is no deficiency in service and the complaint has been filed on false and frivolous grounds. Complainant is guilty of suppression and distortion of facts. In addition, this OP has denied the allegations of the complaint para-wise and has prayed for dismissal of this complaint.

Decision with reasons

            Complainant filed affidavit-in-chief to which OP filed questionnaire against which Complainant filed affidavit-in-reply.  OPs filed evidence to which Complainant did not file questionnaire.

            Main point for determination is whether Complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for.

            On perusal of the prayer portion, it appears that Complainant has prayed for direction upon the OP not to seize the vehicle but to come for amicable settlement between the parties after reschedulement of the debts or go for legal action through the SARFAESI Act,2002 and or RDDB Act, 1993 in debts recovery tribunal. At the outset it is worthwhile to mention that this Forum has no jurisdiction to make a direction upon any institution as to how he will proceed against any person for settling her grievances. So, this Forum cannot direct OP to take legal action through SARFAESI Act, 2002 or RDDB Act, 1993.

            Complainant has also prayed for a direction upon the OP not to seize the vehicle but to come for amicable settlement after reschedulement of the debts.

            In this regard, it is clear that the loan was sanctioned by the Bank under hypothecation scheme and the mini bus was security for the loan. Further, it appears from the written version that since Complainant did not make payment of the installments in time the bus was seized. But, it was again handed over to the Complainant and so complainant has prayed for a direction upon the OP not to seize the mini bus. This direction is contingent upon payment of the EMI by the Complainant to the Bank and it will be determined afresh on the basis of the agreement between the Complainant and the Bank, if there is a failure in making payment. As per the agreement, the question of passing an order upon the OP does not arise. So, we are of the view that this prayer also cannot be allowed.

Hence,

ordered

            CC/155/2017 and the same is dismissed on contest.