Judgment : Dt.20.11.2017

Shri S. K. Verma, President.

            This is a complaint made by one Smt. Sweta Sen, wife of Sri Deep Sen, residing at 28/A, Middle Road, Jadavpur, Kolkata-700 075 against The Branch Manager/Authorised Officer, Bank of India, P-138, Raja S.C.Mallick Road, Garia, P.S.-Patuli, Kolkata-700 084 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, Kolkata.

            Facts in brief are that Complainant Mrs. Sweta Sen, being the borrower and a house-wife was sanctioned Rs.11,00,000/- in 2014 for financing a vehicle loan, Mini Bus No.WB-05/1215 under credit guarantee fund trust for micro and small industries. Against this loan, the Complainant repaid a substantial amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and she has been paying till date. Complainant is very much eager to pay the rest of the amount. But, she was not with 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 apprise 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 over ruling 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 a alternative to employment by the Government and it has 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.11,53,000/- was sanctioned on 4.8.2014 for purchasing a mini bus. 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 time and again requested the Complainant to regularize the loan but she did not so. Thereafter, OP sent four letters on 20.1.2016, 1.6.2016, 5.8.2016 and 27.2.2017 advising the Complainant that overdue in the loan was Rs.50,833, Rs.70,956/-, Rs.81,089.20 and Rs.1,28,072.20. In each of the said letters the Complainant was warned that if she fails to regularize the amount, OP would be compelled in taking possession of the vehicle. In spite of that Complainant failed to regularize the amount of Rs.1,22,853/-. Therefore the loan account was classified as NPA. Finding no other alternative, the OP was compelled to take the vehicle in their possession on 3.4.2017. After that Complainant paid Rs.1.50 lakhs in her S.B.account with the OP with a request to recover the amount of Rs.1,22,853 and also the vehicle seizure charges and other incidental charges from the S.B. account. Complainant also assured the OP that she should deposit the EMI of Rs.20,170/- p.m. regularly and in default the OP may seize and sell the same for recovery of Bank dues. Complainant also requested the OP to release the vehicle so that by plying the same she can repay the loan. Since the loan was regularized with the request of the Complainant, released the vehicle on 5.4.2017 and the representative of the Complainant acknowledge the receipt of the vehicle.

            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 suppressing 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/151/2017 and the same is dismissed on contest.