Order No. 2     date: 21-05-2018

Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

Record is put up today for passing order in respect of the admissibility of the complaint case.

The complaint case revolves around taking possession of the properties of the Complainants by the OP Bank on account of alleged non-payment of outstanding dues to the bank. 

Admittedly, husband of the Complainant No. 1 developed various businesses of his own, including one petrol pump.  It, thus, leave no manner of doubt whatsoever as to the fact that he did not venture into such commercial activities by means of self-employment.  On this score alone, the present complaint is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

That apart, as it appears, the OP Bank has already taken recourse to the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and the Complainants too approached the Ld. Debts Recovery Tribunal for remedy, who has already passed an order in the matter. 

Be it mentioned here that the Hon’ble National Commission through its catena of orders made it clear that once the financial institutions initiate recourse under the SARFAESI Act, the Consumer Fora cannot take any cognizance of such disputes. In this regard, we rely upon the decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in Shiv Shankar Lal Gupta vs Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. & Ors., II (2013) CPJ 56 (NC); Standard Chartered Bank v. Virendra Rai, 2013 (2) CPR 168 (NC); Leathers Ltd. v. Indian Bank, IV (2013) CPJ 107 (NC); Bank of India v. Anil Raveendran, 2015 (2) CPR 41 (NC); Ankur Exports Pvt. Ltd. v. Bank of Baroda, I (2015) CPJ 216 (NC); Bank of India v. Sudarshan Kumar Mittal, 2015 (2) CPR 152 (NC).

In view of this, we are constrained to hold that the present complaint is not maintainable in its present form and prayer.  The case is, therefore, not admitted and dismissed but without any cost.