DATE OF DISPOSAL: 05.12.2023

PER:   SRI SATISH KUMAR PANIGRAHI, PRESIDENT: 

   The fact of the case in brief is that the  complainant has filed this consumer complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties  (in short the O.Ps ) and for redressal of his grievance before this Commission.  

2. A business loan wassanctioned in favour of one M/s Pati General Store, Prop: Golap Kumar Pati and the complainant Smt. Laxmi Behera is standing as a guarantor in the said loan account vide Account No. 14590600012900,  Principal amount of Rs.6,15,000/-, sanctioned on dated 28.12.2010. The borrower of the above specified loan suddenly died on 20.12.2016. The complainant learned that she was trapped as guarantor in the above specified fraud commercial loan. The fraud commercial loan has been detected and recognized by O.P.No.1 & 2. The O.Ps have released and credited the insurance amount of the complainant (guarantor) that stood as surety for the above specified commercial loan to the complainant’s account on 28.01.2016 which came to the complainant’s notice on 04.10.2017. The O.Ps have intentionally and illegally withheld the title deed and documents of the complainant and mischievously declared these as NPA to prevent the detection of fraud commercial loan. The release is being willfully delayed since 28 January 2017 till date, intended to continuously torture and inflicts enormous mental agony to the complainant, for exposing the fraud and has been subjected to conditional release. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps the complainant prayed to direct the O.Ps to repeal the NPA status of the complainant’s property (Dwelling house) , issue “No dues certificate”, compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- and litigation cost of rupees  one lakh in the best interest of justice.

3. The Commission after hearing issued notice to both the opposite parties and duly acknowledging the said notices, the opposite parties were appeared through the Advocate.

4. The O.P. No. 1 & 2 filed written version through his advocates. It is stated that the allegations made in the complaint petition are not all true and the complainant is put to strict proof of such allegations which are specifically denied hereunder. The averments made in Para-1, 2&3 of the complaint petition disclose the status of the complainant and O.Ps to which the O.Ps offers no comment. It is true that a business loan was sanctioned in favour of one M/s Pati General Store, Prop: Golap Kumar Pati and the complainant Smt. Laxmi Behera is standing as a guarantor in the said loan account vide Account No. 14590600012900 sanctioned on 27.12.2015. The proprietor of M/s Pati General Store died on 20.12.2016. The complainant has taken an untenable cheap pleas to escape from here liabilities. It is very indecent to say that when the borrower Golap Kumar Pati was alive, the loan was good and after his death, the loan became fraud commercial loan. It is worth to say that the complainant suomoto on his own accord came forwarded to stand as a guarantor in the above loan and nobody has forced her to do so. Initially she send some local gonads to make afraid of the Branch Manager and other staff and later she sent some persons impersonating themselves as High Court Advocates etc. which are captured in the CCTV camera affixed in the Bank premises. It is also quite illegal/false to say that the O.Ps have abused their power etc. and there is nothing personal in realizing the loan dues rather it is a public funds organization and the complainant should have obeyed the legal procedures, otherwise she will be punished for breaking such banking rules and other legal provisions. The complaint petition is designed just to escape from the legal liabilities and the complainant has adopted many illegal ways to make fear the bank officials who are proceeded for realization of the loan dues from the complainant, such actions are illegal and as such she is liable to be punished as per law. It is therefore prayed that the case be dismissed against the O.Ps and impose heavy penalty/fine on the complainant for filing of such vexatious complaint.

       4. On the date of hearing of the consumer complaint, the advocate for the complainant is present and heard but nobody appeared for the opposite parties and found absent on repeated call and no steps taken by the opposite parties. We perused the complaint petition, written version, written arguments and materials placed on the case record.

It is apparent from the case record that, the complainant has stands herself as guarantor for a loan account vide Account No. 14590600012900 which was sanctioned for commercial purpose in favour of the M/s Pati General Store, Prop: Golap Kumar Pati. The complainant admitted in her evidence on affidavit clearly that, the opposite parties declared the title deed and documents of her as NPA on 30.09.2016 (Annexure F).

The consumer protection act, 1986 is very clear and précis about the term ‘Commercial purpose’ and the complainant is not a consumer of any commercial transactions. The complainant became guarantor for the said commercial transactions of the M/s Pati General Store, Prop: Golap Kumar Pati since the date of sanction of the loan. Hence the intention of the complainant to support to the commercial purpose of the M/s Pati General Store, Prop: Golap Kumar Pati business.The term Commercial under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 reads as follows –

“Sec. 2(d) (ii): Consumer means any person who XXX ….. XXX ….. XXX …..[ but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose]”

 – Explanation: For the purposes of this clause, ‘commercial purpose’ does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment.”

Hon’ble Apex Court of India held in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Harsolia Motors & Others reported in 2023 Live Law SC 313-Civil Appeal No(s). 5352-5353 of 2007, April 13, 2023 that, “Commercial Enterprises can raise Consumer Disputes in relation to Goods or Services unconnected to profit generation”. The instant case itself discloses that, the loan was sanctioned by the opposite parties to the borrower for business purposes which is very much connected to profit generation of M/s Pati General Store.

From the submission in shape of evidence on affidavit by the Complainant referring to Annexure F, it clearly speaks about initiation of proceedingsfor NPA by the opposite parties bank and started recovery of the debt from the borrower’s loan account on 30.09.2016.The recovery action of the opposite parties smells initiation of the proceedings under debt recovery law. In such event, the Dist. Commission has no jurisdiction to pass any order as No civil court and the consumer forum has jurisdiction to pass any order in accordance to the debt recovery law and the law is well settled in Central Bank of India v. Ram Chandra Sahoo reported in Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/79029215/held by the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa.

We relying upon the principles of law laid down in National Insurance Co. Ltd.(Supra) andCentral Bank of India (Supra), and in our considered views the Commission dismissed the present complaint against the opposite parties. The complainant is at liberty to file his complaint before Competent Court/Tribunal and she may avail the benefits under Section 14 of the Limitation Act 1963 in the best interest of justice.

This case is disposed of accordingly.

The Judgment be uploaded on the www.confonet.nic.in for the perusal of the parties.

Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from confonet or website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.

The file is to be consigned to the record room along with a copy of this Judgment.

Pronounced on 05.12..2023