Judgment : Dt.12.12.2017

Shri S. K. Verma, President

            This is a complaint made by one Shri Deep Sen, son of Sri Dulal Kanti Sen, residing at 28/A, Middle Road, Jadavpur, Kolkata-700 075 against The Manager/Authorised Officer, Canada Bank, Raja Subodh Chandra Mallick Rd., opposite to Jadavpur Unitersity beside Jadavpur 8B, Bus Terminus, Jadavpur, P.S.-Jadavpur, Kolkata-700 032 praying for a direction upon the O.P. not to seize the vehicle but to come for an amicable settlement between the parties after reschedulement of the debts or go for legal action through the SARFAESI act 2002 and or RDDB Act, 1993 before DRT.

            Facts in brief are that Complainant being the borrower was sanctioned Rs.13,00,800/- in 2013 for bus No.WB-05-0511 being A/C No.0980768000001 under credit guarantee fund trust for small industries read with credit guarantee fund trust for Micro & Small enterprises from Canara Bank, Jadavpur branch. Complainant repaid substantial amount of money to the tune of Rs.8,70,000/- and used to pay other installments almost regularly. Bank authorities failed to comply with the principles of fairness in dealing with the borrowers. Complainant went under medical treatment as a result of which there was financial loss to him. Complainant also suffered loss as passengers did not board the bus. Bank officials threatened Complainant to pay all the dues within 7 days. In addition, Complainant has mentioned several judgments in his complaints like ICCI Bank vs Shanti Devi Sharma & Ors, Industrial Bank vs Birendra Kr. Sinha & ors. Further, Complainant has referred RBI Rules and circulars in his complaint and filed this case.

            OP filed written version and denied the allegations of the complaint. Further, OP has stated that prayer made by Complainant is not maintainable and so this complaint requires to be dismissed in limine.

Decision with reasons

            Complainant filed affidavit-in-chief to which OP filed questionnaire to which Complainant filed affidavit-in-reply.  OP filed affidavit-in-chief to which Complainant did not file questionnaire.

            Main point for determination is whether Complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for.

            On perusal of the prayer portion, it appears that main prayer of the Complainant is a direction upon the OP not to seize the vehicle but to come for amicable settlement between the parties. In this regard, it appears that no cause of action is mentioned in the complaint. Further, Complainant does not describe or allege the ground under which such a direction can be passed. For the sake of argument, it is accepted that Complainant was under medical treatment and passengers did not board the bus of the Complainant, the fault is not with the OP. OP being a nationalized bank advanced loan to the Complainant for purchasing the bus on condition that Complainant would refund the loan amount with interest, it is the bounden duty of the Complainant to make refund failing which OP has authority to seize the vehicle and so the question of allowing prayer of direction upon the OP not to seize the vehicle does not arise. Further, Complainant has prayed for direction upon the OP for reschedulements of the debts or to invoke SARFAESI Act or RDDB Act.

            In our view such a prayer is contrary to the principle of law and natural justice. No judicial or quasi judicial body has authority to direct any person to invoke a particular statute. This always the choice of the person who is aggrieved.

            As such, we are of the view that this complaint is devoid of any merit.

Hence,

ordered

            CC/152/2017 and the same is dismissed on contest.