Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member
This complaint case is filed by M/s J. D. Herbals and Ors. against the Oriental Bank of Commerce and others alleging arbitrary enhancement of one time settlement amount.
In short, case of the Complainants is that on the basis of their applications, the OP Bank sanctioned a cash credit loan worth Rs. 1,47,00,000/- against the stocks of raw materials, stock-in-process, finished goods, stores & spares, receivables etc. Subsequently, the said business suffered jolt owing to various reasons for which the Complainants urged the OP Bank for extending one time settlement offer. The OP No. 2 vide its letter dated 24-01-2011 asked the Complainant to settle the loan account by repaying a sum of Rs. 1,20,00,000/- within 3 or 12 months. To this, the Complainant opted for settling the said amount in 12 months on quarterly basis. However, the OP Bank took inordinate time to respond to Complainant’s offer to pay the OTS amount on quarterly basis. After long delay, vide its letter dated 25-08-2011, the OP No. 2 informed that the settlement proposal was approved for a sum of Rs. 1,53,28,000/-. During pendency of the application for OTS, the OPs, in utter violation of the norms and guidelines of the RBI, filed an application before the Kolkata Debts Recovery Tribunal No. 2 being O.A. 920/2010. Terming such act of the OPs as glaring instance of unfair trade practice, the Complainants filed this case.
Per contra case of the OP No. 2 is that at the instance of the Complainant, due settlement had been arrived at in between them 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:
Admittedly, the Complainants took loan for a sum of Rs. 1,47,00,000/- from the OP Bank. Subsequently, the said loan account was settled on payment of the OTS amount. Be it the loan amount being sanctioned by the OP Bank or the settlement amount being paid by the Complainants, it appears that both are far above the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission.
It is also the undisputed fact of this case that the subject loan was availed of by the Complainants for pursuing commercial interests. It is nobody’s case that the said venture was embarked upon by the Complainants for the purpose of maintenance of their livelihood by means of self employment.
Further evident is the fact that the dispute once reached the end of Debts Recovery Tribunal and subsequently, the complaint case was filed.
On due consideration of all these discernable facts, we are of view that the present dispute does not construe a consumer dispute and this Commission lacks due jurisdiction to try this case.
Point Nos. 2&3:
In view of our above findings, we are not inclined to delve into 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.
