Date of filing    : 29-11-2013

                                                                     Date of order   : 30-04-2014

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD

                                             CC.277/2013

                      Dated this, the 30^th    day of   April  2014

PRESENT:

SMT.P.RAMADEVI                                         : PRESIDENT

SMT.K.G.BEENA                                          : MEMBER

SMT.SHIBA.M.SAMUEL                               : MEMBER

1. T.K. Narayanan,                                                              : Compalinants

2 . Tilakan.N.

3.  T.Raghavan

(Complainants 1 to 3 are R/at Kalanad

 Beach, Po.Chandragiri, Kasaragod Dt.)

 (Advs.U.S.Balan& Rajesh.K. Kasaragod)

1. The Kerala Gramin Bank, Rep. by Branch Manager, : Opposite parties

    Erstwhile North Malabar Gramin Bank, Melparamba

    Branch, Po.Kaland. Kasaragod.Dt.

   (Advs. PVC Nair & Sathyashankara.M, Kasaragod)

2  The Secretary, Kerala Fishermen Debt Relief

    Commission, Nalanda Road, Kavadiyar.Po,

    Thiruvananthapuram.

                                                            O R D E R

SMT.P.RAMDEVI, PRESIDENT

            The facts of the complaint in brief are as follows:

            That the complainants 1 & 2 jointly availed a housing loan of Rupees one lakh from 1^st opposite party and 3^rd complainant as surety by executing memorandum of agreement dated 27-06-2007 and repayable @ Rs.1123/- in 222 equal monthly instalments and the last instalment falls due on 27-06-2027 and the Government of Kerala on 2-11-2007 has issued a moratorium order as per government gazette Order No.41/2007 and the complainants have commenced the repayment of the loan and after issuance of the moratorium the complainants stopped the repayments of the loan amount and the government extended  the moratorium from time to time and the complainants are eligible for the benefit under the moratorium order but the 1^st opposite party inspite of moratorium order is in existence  has filed OS No.254/2010 before the Subordinate Judge, Kasaragod against the complainants and issued notice under Section 13(3) of securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of security Interest Act 2002 and according to the complainants that the notice was issued directing the complainants to pay Rs.1,89,194/- without considering the moratorium orders issued by the Government.  Hence this complaint is filed alleging deficiency in service against opposite parties.

2.         On receipt of notice from this Forum opposite parties appeared through counsels and filed their version.  Opposite parties denied all the allegations made against them and taken a contention that the complaint is not maintainable before this Forum since the complaint is barred by the principle of resjudicata.

3.         Here the complaint specifically pleaded that the opposite parties  filed  Suit before the Subordinate  Judge, Kasaragod as OS.No.254/10 and the suit was decreed infavour of opposite parties. Opposite parties specifically stated that there is no appeal preferred by the complainants against the above mentioned decree.

            In Standard Chartered  Bank V. Virendra Rai 2013       CPJ Page 337, the Hon’ble National Commission observed that District Forum or State Commission have no power to interfere   with the SARFAESI  Act.

4.         In the present case Civil Court already passed a considered judgment on merit after hearing both parties.

            Therefore we are of the opinion that once the matter is adjudicate before a court of law  there is no scope of further adjudication and the complaint is barred by principles of Resjudicata.  Hence the complaint is dismissed in limine.

MEMBER                                          MEMBER                                          PRESIDENT

Pj/