Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/15/198

M/s Ujjwal Textile - Complainant(s)

Versus

UCO Bank - Opp.Party(s)

S.S.Heer Adv.

31 Mar 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

                                                             C.C. No:198 of 24.03.2015

                                                                        Date of Decision:31.03.2015

M/s Ujjwal Textile, Priya Colony, Village Bajra, Rahon Road, Ludhiana through its Proprietor Sh. Pawan Kumar, S/o Sh.Raghubir Prakash, r/o House No.504, Sita Nagar, Near Bus Stand, Ludhiana.

Complainant

Versus 

UCO Bank, Miller Ganj Branch, Ludhiana through its Chief Manager. 

                   Opposite party

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE

CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986. 

 

Quorum:               Sh.R.L.Ahuja, President

                   Sh.Sat Paul Garg, Member.                       

                   Ms.Babita, Member.

         

Present:       Sh.S.S.Heer, Advocate for complainant.

 

                          ORDER 

 

(R.L.AHUJA, PRESIDENT)

 

1.                Heard on the point of admissibility of the complaint. Perusal of the complaint reveals that M/s Ujjwal Textile, Priya Colony, Village Bajra, Rahon Road, Ludhiana through its Proprietor Sh. Pawan Kumar (hereinafter in short to be described as ‘complainant’) has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against UCO Bank, Miller Ganj Branch, Ludhiana through its Chief Manager (hereinafter in short to be described as ‘Op’) with the brief averments that the complainant firm had availed the credit facilities from the OP branch by way of financial assistance against various assists by creating security interest in favour of the Op bank. The credit facility which the complainant firm had availed was cash credit(Hypothecation of stocks) to the tune of Rs.12 lakh by mortgaging the property measuring 458.92 square yards bearing Vasika No.1504 dated 2.5.2002 comprising khasra No.40//11/2, Khata No.58/68 as per jamabandi for the year 1997-98 situated at Priya Colony, village Bajra, Rahon Road, Ludhiana which was in the name of Pawan Kumar, s/o Sh.Raghubir Prakash. The said facility which has been granted to the complainant firm was bearing account No.CC0127500001713. At the time of sanction of the said credit facility ot the said firm, the OP bank got so many blank documents signed from its proprietor. Unfortunately, the said account had become irregular and the debit had been classified as NPA. Thereafter, the OP bank served a notice u/s 13(2) of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 on 6.1.2014 to the complainant firm as well as to its Proprietor Sh.Pawan Kumar. After that the OP bank had intended to take further action against the complainant firm u/s 13(2) of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and auctioned the property of the complainant firm on 17.12.2014 and had recovered full and final amount of Rs.12,62,108/- due upto 31.12.2013 including interest of cash credit limit. The OP bank had taken the possession of the mortgaged property vide Possession Notice NO.UCO/MGL/2014-15 dated 9.9.2014 and at that time, the liability of the complainant firm was Rs.12,62,168/-. The mortgaged property had been auctioned by the OP bank on 14.12.2014 to the tune of Rs.41,16,000/- and the balance amount of Rs.24,48,542/- has been credited to the account of complainant firm on 26.12.2014 and the same has been remitted to the complainant firm vide their letter No.UCO/MG/2014-15/765 dated 26.12.2014 alongwith a draft for Rs.6,48,542/-, Rs.9 lakh and Rs.9 lakh vide DD No.551530 to 551532 dated 26.12.2014. After the receipt of the above amounts, the proprietor of the firm visited the OP bank and collected the copy of account statement on 2.1.2015 for the period 1.1.2013 to 26.12.2014 and surprised to note that the OP bank has unilaterally debited the various amounts to the account of the complainant firm. The said entries are totally illegal, null and void as the OP bank had wrongly classified the account of the complainant firm as NPA when the accounts were being operated regularly and this fact is evident from the accounts statement for the period 1.4.2013 to 26.12.2014. On 10.1.2014 and 31.3.2014, the complainant firm deposited a draft for Rs.49,526/- and cash RS.14,000/- in their account. After that the OP bank had also unilaterally debited the amounts as described in the complaint to the account of the complainant firm without serving any notice and obtaining any consent from the complainant firm. As per the decision of the Apex Court that penal interest cannot be capitalized and no interest can be charged on penalty. In this way, the OP bank has charged excess rate of interest and service charges while not complying the prescribed rules under the RBI guidelines/circulars. The complainant firm also served a legal notice dated 20.2.2015 upon the OP bank for refund of the amount charged illegally after classified the account NPA as mentioned in para no.5(b) of the complaint but till today, neither the amount has been refunded nor any reply has been received from the OP bank. Hence, this complaint.

2.                During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the complainant has placed on record judgments titled as Kalka Primary Agricultural & Rural Development Bank Ltd. Vs. Mam Chand-2011(1)CPC-329(N.C.) and Awaz and others v.s Reserve Bank of India and others-2008(1)CPC-534(N.C.).

3.                Perusal of the contents of the complaint reveals that the complainant had availed the cash credit facilities to the tune of Rs.12 lakh from the OP bank by way of Financial Assistance against mortgaging the property as mentioned in the complaint and the complainant firm was granted account No.CC0127500001713 and unfortunately, the abovesaid account of the complainant had become irregular and the debit had been classified as NPA.Recovery proceedings were initiated by the OP bank under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and ultimately, the possession of the mortgaged property was taken and the same was sold. After deducting the recoverable amount, the remaining amount was remitted to the complainant firm and this fact also find corroboration from the copy of notice u/s 13(2) of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 sent to the complainant by the OP on 6.1.2014 alongwith other documents placed on record by the complainant.

4.                So, it appears that proceedings were initiated against the complainant u/s 13(2) of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and recoveries were effected by the bank under the aforesaid Act and the complainant has made prayer for the relief as claimed in para No.12 of the complaint. Section 34 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 clearly debars the jurisdiction of Civil Courts which includes this Forum to entertain and decide the present complaint.

5.                So, in view of the above discussion, we are of the view that complaint of the complainant is not maintainable and the same is not admitted for hearing being barred by jurisdiction. Copy of the order be sent to the complainant free of cost and thereafter, file be consigned to the record room.

 

(Babita)                (Sat Paul Garg)          (R.L.Ahuja)

            Member               Member                       President 

Announced in Open Forum.

Dated:31.03.2015

(Gurpreet Sharma)