DATE OF FILING : 10.8.2011

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 28^th day of October, 2011

Present:

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT

SMT.BINDHU SOMAN MEMBER

C.C No.172/2011

Between

Complainant : Satheeshkumar. S.,

Block No.413,

Thookkupalam, Kallar – 685 552,

Idukki District.

And

Opposite Parties : 1. The Manager,

Idukki District Co-operative Bank Ltd.,

Mundiyeruma Branch,

Thookkupalam, Kallar – 685 552,

Idukki District.

2. The General Manager, Idukki District Co-operative Bank Ltd.,

Head Office, Idukki Colony P.O.,

Idukki District – 685 602.

3. The Authorised Officer,

(UNDER SARFAESI ACT),

Idukki District Co-operative Bank Ltd.,

Idukki Colony P.O.,

Idukki District – 685 602.

(All by Adv: C.K. Babu)

O R D E R

SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN (PRESIDENT)

The complainant availed a loan of Rs.2 lakhs from the opposite party for the purpose of business and the repayment was through daily collection. The complainant paid about Rs.50,000/- to the opposite party. The amount was collected by the collection agent of the opposite party bank. The business of the complainant became dull and so the repayments were became due. So the complainant has to pay Rs.1,79,738/- to the opposite party as per the notice issued by the bank including interest. The complainant was ready to pay the same amount to the opposite party bank and also to pay the balance amount in instalments. The opposite parties charged hike interest from the complainant. So the petition is filed for getting 12 yearly instalments for the repayments of the loan.

(cont.....2)

- 2 -

2. As per the written version filed by the opposite party, it is stated that the petition is not at all maintainable because the opposite parties had initiated SARFAESI Act proceedings against the complainant. So this case is not at all maintainable before this Forum. This petition is filed only for avoiding the payment of the loan availed by the complainant and also for delaying the same. The complainant is entitled to pay the entire amount and interest as per the agreement between the opposite party. So this petition is not at all maintainable and the relief claimed are also not at all sustainable.

3. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to?

4. No oral evidence adduced by both the parties. Heard.

5. The POINT :- As per the complainant, he availed Rs.2 lakhs from the opposite party bank for the purpose of business, but he was not able to repay the same because the business became failure. Eventhough he paid an amount of Rs.50,000/- to the opposite party, they issued a notice for an amount of Rs.1,79,738/-. The complainant is ready to pay the balance amount to the opposite party bank, but the instalment facility is needed for the same. As per the opposite party, a demand notice has been issued by the opposite party to the complainant as per the SARFAESI Act Section 13(2) and further proceedings has been initiated against the complainant for the same. The copy of the notice is also produced.

As per the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in 2011 (3) KLT 616, by Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Siri Jagan in Panjab National Bank Vs. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, in W.P.(C) No.5957 of 2011, decided on 29^th July, 2011, “Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Sn.14 –Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, Sections 34 & 35 – Jurisdiction of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum to deal with matters provided for in SARFAESI Act, is expressly excluded”.

Summary

Question raised is : Whether jurisdiction of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum to deal with matters provided for in SARFAESI Act, is expressly excluded ?

(cont....3)

- 3 -

Bank challenges an interim order of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum passed under Consumer Protection Act filed by respondents 1 and 2 restraining and prohibiting petitioner Bank from taking auction proceedings of sale and other proceedings against respondents 2 and 3 pursuant to a notice issued under SARFAESI Act.

Allowing the Writ Petition, Court held that Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain any complaint in respect of any measures taken by a Bank or a Financial Institution under SARFAESI Act and Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has no jurisdiction to give any relief whatsoever against same.

So this decision is absolutely applicable in this case and this Forum lacks jurisdiction to try this case.

Hence the petition dismissed. No cost is ordered against the complainant.

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 28^th day of October, 2011

Sd/-

SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN (PRESIDENT)

Sd/-

SMT. BINDHU SOMAN (MEMBER)

APPENDIX

Nil.