Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member
This complaint case is filed by M/s J. D. Health Care Pvt. Ltd. alleging excess realization of a sum of Rs. 32,22,078/- from it by the OP Bank.
In a nutshell, case of the Complainant is that, it availed of term loan worth Rs. 32,00,000/- and cash credit limit worth Rs. 95,00,000/- from the OP Bank. In view of some unforeseen circumstances, the said business suffered severe losses for which a request was made before the OP Bank to restructure the CC loan account. In turn, the OP Bank sanctioned a limit of Rs. 1,09,94,000/- as working capital term loan by combining the balance outstanding in cash credit and term loan giving a moratorium period up to June, 2010 payable in 108 EMIs. However, owing to recurring losses, the Complainant was not in a position to pay the scheduled EMIs and decided to dispose of the factory. The OP Bank subsequently issued a recalled notice under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 vide letter dated 18-07-2011 demanding a sum of Rs. 1,29,64,788.26 from the Complainant. Subsequently, though the Complainant offered to settle the loan by paying Rs. 87,00,000/-, it was not acceptable to the OP Bank. Thereafter, several correspondences were exchanged between the parties. All on a sudden, the OP Bank took physical possession of the factory of the Complainant against which the Complainant preferred an Appeal before the Debts Recovery Tribunal being S.A. No. 334/2012. However, the same was subsequently withdrawn by the Complainant. Thereafter, the Regional Office of the OP addressed a sanction letter dated 21-04-2012 mentioning therein the approved amount of settlement at Rs. 1,34,20,000/-. It is further submitted that the OP Bank kept on charging interest on the NPA and did not allow the Complainant to avail the OTS scheme. Subsequently, the Complainant paid Rs. 1,71,05,862/- under compulsion. Though subsequently the Complainant asked the OP Bank to refund the excess amount of Rs. 32,22,078/-, it did not pay any heed to its request. So, this complaint case.
The OP No. 2, by filing its WV, submitted that due settlement had been arrived between the parties as per guideline of the RBI and the Complainant accepted the settlement proposal and paid the settlement amount to the bank, but before payment of the settlement amount to the bank, did not raise any objection and as such, this complaint is not maintainable. This OP denied all the material allegation of the complaint.
Ld. Advocate for the OP No. 2 also represented the OP No. 1 by filing vakalatnama. However, no separate WV was filed on its behalf.
Points for consideration
- Whether the complaint case is maintainable in its present form and prayer?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, as alleged?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for?
Decision with reasons
Point No. 1:
Be it the sanctioned loan amount or the settlement sum being paid by the Complainant to the OP Bank, the same being well above the pecuniary jurisdiction of State Commission, it is inadmissible before this Commission.
Further, as it was a purely commercial venture and element of livelihood by means of self-employment is sorely missing here, for this reason also, the complaint case is not maintainable.
Point Nos. 2&3:
In view of the findings as above, we restrain ourselves from discussing the merit of this case.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
The case stands dismissed on contest against the OP Nos. 1&2 being not maintainable. Due liberty is, however, accorded to the Complainants to agitate their grievance before the appropriate Court of Law if they so desire and in that case, they may be entitled to the benefit of the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works v. P.S.G. Industrial Institute II (1995) CPJ 1 (SC) : 1995 3 SCC 583 for the purpose of exclusion of time spent in pursuing their case before this Commission.
