Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/297/2019

Mr.Rajashekar.B.S S/o Sathyanarayana.B.R - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager,The Fedral Bank Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.P.S. Sathyanarayana Rao

25 Jun 2019

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON :22/03/2019

               DISPOSED ON:30/05/2019

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA

 

CC. NO. 297/2019 DATED:30th MAY 2019

 

PRESENT :-         SRI.T.N.SREENIVASAIAH      :   PRESIDENT                                           B.A., LL.B.,

                             SRI. SHIVAKUMAR.K.N         :     MEMBER

                                      B.Com.LL.B.,

                             SMT. JYOTHI RADHESH JEMBAGI

BSc.,MBA., DHA.,          :    LADY MEMBER

COMPLAINANT/S	Mr. Rajashekhar. B.S, S/o Sathyanarayana. B.R, Proprietor of Siri Tractors, R/o Balaji Sadana, I Main, I Cross, BVKS Layout, Near Kanaka Circle, Chitradurga-577 501.   (Rep by Smt/Sri.P.S. Sathyanarayana Rao, Advocate)
OPPOSITE PARTIES	1. The Branch Manager, The Federal Bank Ltd., Opp: Vasavi Mahal, Santhe Honda Road, Chitradurga-577 501.   2. The Authorized Signatory, The Federal Bank Ltd., LCRD/Bangalore Division, No.4, II Cross, CSI Compound, Mission Road, Bangalore-560027.   (Rep by Smt/Sri.C.J. Lakshminarasimha, Advocate)

 

SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH: PRESIDENT

ORDERS ON IA U/SEC.13(3-B) OF C.P. ACT

 

The complainant has filed an application under the above provision seeking direction to pay an ad-interim order against the OP to provide six months time to remit the borrowed loan amount by postponing the auction sale of pledged properties belongs to him.

2. In support of this application, the complainant has filed an affidavit seeking relief for six months time to clear the entire loan amount in one time settlement and further prays for not to take sale proceeds pertains o pledged properties and further the Siri Tractors is doing business at Kanaka Circle, Chitradurga since more than two years and availed OD facilities by pledging original property documents with the OP having account bearing No.15945500000418 and further submits that, the complainant is ready to repay the balance of borrowed loan amount to the OP Bank, but required six months time to settle the loan at one time settlement as the Farmers are not cleared the loan amount to him.  Further the OP Bank has taken steps to auction the No.2 pledged property on 25.04.2019 by giving paper publication and issued notice to remit Rs.24,77,680/- vide No. BGRLCRD /CRA/PN/175/118/2018-19 dated 26.02.2019.  Out of this, the complainant has remitted Rs.5,00,000/- towards loan amount on 19.03.2019 and further submitted that, the OP No.1 has drag on the matter to sanction the loan, due to this, the complainant has suffered heavy financial loss, mental agony and name and fame in the society, which cannot be compensated in any terms of money.  It clearly shows the deficiency of service, dereliction of duties and unfair trade practice towards it customers and thus, the complainant has got prima-facie case and balance of convenience lies with him.  If this application is not allowed, the complainant will be put to great hardship and injury, which cannot be compensated by other side. 

3. After service of notice, one Sri. C.J. Lakshminarasimha, Advocate appeared on behalf of OP and filed objection to the I.A.  As per the objections filed by the OP No.1, the application filed against OP No.1 is not maintainable either in law or on facts and the same is liable to be dismissed in limine and further the OPs have not committed any deficiency of service or negligence at any point of time towards the complainant or any customers.  Further the complaint is barred by jurisdiction and hence, the complaint filed by the complainant is liable to be dismissed.  Further it is submitted that, the Civil Courts are clearly barred from entertain these type of suits against the Banking Institutions in their recovery proceedings under Sarfaesi Act.  It is fairly submitted that, without prejudice to the above submissions, it is also submitted that Section 34 of Sarfaesi Act Clearly states that, “No Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which a Debt Recovery Tribunal or a Appellate Tribunal is empowered by or under this Act to determine and no injunction shall be granted by any Court or other authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act or under the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993(51 of 1993)”.  Hence, this Forum has no jurisdiction to try this suit or complaint and has further enumerated that injunction shall not be granted by any Court in respect of the matters which is to be entertained by DRT and DRAT only.  Further this Forum has directed the complainant to deposit an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- before this Forum within four days from the date of order.  But the OPs have not received any information with regard to the same and the complainant has not followed the order passed by this Forum and not deposited the amount before this Forum.  Hence, prayed for vacate the stay order granted against the OPs.  Further the complaint is not maintainable u/Sec.34 of the Sarfaesi Act.  The Section 34 of the Sarfaesi Act is very clear that, the Civil Court or any other authorities have no jurisdiction to entertain any complaint or they have no right to grant injunction order in respect of any auction taken or to be taken in pursuance of power conferred by or under this Act or under the recovery of debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993.

  

4. Now the Points that arise for our consideration for the decision of the IA are that:-

Point No.1:-Whether the application filed by the complainant is maintainable or not?

 

Point No.2:- What order?

 

       

5. Our findings on the above points are as follows.

 

        Point No.1:-  In Negative.

        Point No.2:- As per the final order.

::REASONS::

 

6. Point No. 1:-The complainant has filed this complaint against the OPs relief to stop the auction/sale proceedings of the pledged two properties by providing six months time to settle the loan amount in one time settlement.  The complainant is ready to pay the entire amount borrowed from the OPs in one time settlement.  But the complainant is seeking six months time to settle the loan amount.  The Advocate for OPs has filed objections stating that, this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint.  In support of their arguments, they have produced Judgment passed by the Hon’lbe Kerala High Court in the case of Punjab National Bank Vs. The Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum and others wherein, the Hon’ble Kerala High Court come to the conclusion that, the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain any complaint in respect of any measures taken by a Bank or a Financial Institution under the Securitization And Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and the CDRF has no jurisdiction to give any relief whatsoever against the same.  Further the Advocate for OP has produced the Circular u/Sec.34 of the Sarfaesi Act.  In this Act, it clearly goes to show that, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction or other authorities have no power to grant any injunction or stay order against the auction fixed by the Bank Authority u/Sec.34 of the Sarfaesi Act.  The arguments addressed by the complainant that, he is seeking only six months time to settle the loan amount.  No doubt, the prayer sought by the complainant is comes under natural justice and morality.  Anyhow, the complainant has got a very good case, but this Forum has no right to entertain this type of complaint.  Accordingly, we answer Point No.1 held as negative. 

 

7. Point No.2:- As discussed on the above point and for the reasons stated therein, we pass the following:

 

ORDER

The I.A filed by the complainant u/Sec.13(3-B) of the C.P. Act, 1986 is hereby dismissed.  Consequently, the complaint filed by the complainant is hereby dismissed. 

Office is hereby directed to return all the documents to the complainant and the complainant is at liberty to file a complaint before the jurisdictional Court for redressal.  

 (This order is made with the consent of Lady Members after the correction of the draft on 30/05/2019 and it is pronounced in the open Court after our signature)

 

 

 

 

 

LADY MEMBER                                       PRESIDENT