Learned Advocates from both sides are present.

Today is fixed for order on the petition dated 19/06/2019 filed by the O.Ps. assailing the maintainability of the complaint filed by the Complainant.

On behalf of the complainant written reply has been filed on 03/07/2019 against the petition of the O.Ps.

On 26/07/2019 we heard both sides' Advocates on the petition filed by the O.Ps. and the reply furnished by the Complainant to the said petition. 

It was contended by Learned Advocate for the O.Ps. that the complaint filed by the Complainant was not maintainable U/S 34 of SURFAESI Act,2002 wherein it has been mentioned that no Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which a Debts Recovery Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal is empowered by or under this Act to determine and no injunction shall be granted by any court or other authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act or under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (51 of 1993). 

Learned Advocate further submitted that as the Complainant became defaulter in repayment of the secured debts and his account in respect of such debts has been classified by the secured creditor as non performing asset, the secured creditor i.e. the O.P. Bank had issued a notice on 01/04/2019 U/S 13(2) of  SURFAESI Act,2002 for enforcement of security interest. The Complainant after receiving the notice has filed the instant complaint before the Forum on 23/05/2019 and on the next day the Complainant had secured stay order from the Forum against the notice which was issued by the O.Ps.  

By referring section 34 of the SURFAESI Act,2002, Learned Advocate for the O.Ps. argued that the complaint filed by the complainant was not maintainable. 

Learned Advocate appearing for the Complainant on the other hand opposing the submissions made by the Learned Advocate for the O.Ps. contended that the Complainant being a consumer has a statutory right to file the complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as there was deficiency of services towards him by the O.P. Bank who is a service provider.

According to the Learned Advocate the O.P. Bank has unfairly delayed to encash 30 nos. of RIP fixed deposit certificate in spite of written request made by the Complainant on 18/06/2016. The O.P. Bank has  encashed those securities on 25/10/2016 causing loss to the Complainant. It was also contended by the Learned Advocate for the Complainant that the Branch Manager, of the O.P. Bank did not reduce the over draft amount by adjusting the amount against 13 nos. RIP though Complainant made repeated requests to the Branch Manager. 

The O.P. Branch Manager also did not adjust the lump sum amount of Rs.23,00,000/- which was received by the Complainant from the Hindustan Unilever.

It was further contended by Learned Advocate for the Complainant, that the O.P. Bank did not reduce the over draft limit as prayed for by the complainant from Rs.1,00,00,000/- to Rs.80,00,000/- but the O.P. Bank has levied interest on the over draft account which amounted to unfair trade practice. 

Learned Advocate has also contended that the Complainant and his son Sri Tripan Saha filed complaint case No.CC-04/2019 earlier and the said case is pending before the Forum and that the Forum by its order dated 25/01/2019 had restrained the O.P. Bank until further order from encashing two RIP for Rs.13,41,000/- and Rs.4,49,000/- which had been deposited as security against CC/OD account No.0265100030006 in the name of the complainant. According to the Learned Advocate the O.P. Bank in order to frustrate the purpose of filing the complaint case No.CC-04/2019 of the complainant and his father, has filed the petition challenging the maintainability of the present complaint case No. CC-39/2019. 

Learned Advocate argued that the instant consumer complaint is maintainable and the petition filed by the O.Ps. dated 19/06/2019 deserves rejection.

We have gone through the petition filed by the O.Ps. dated 03/07/2019 challenging the maintainability of the instant consumer complaint filed by the Complainant and the objection filed by the Complainant against the petition dated 03/07/2019 of the O.Ps.  

After going through the copy of the notice dated 01/04/2019 U/S 13(2) of   SURFAESI Act,2002, issued by the Chief Manager, UBI Tripura Region, we find that the said notice was issued for the purpose of enforcement of security interest as the Complainant as a Borrower became defaulter in repayment of secured debts. 

We further notice that the Complainant has filed the present complaint before this Forum  after having been served by the O.Ps. on him the notice dated 01/04/2019 U/S 13(2) of  SURFAESI Act,2002. 

We further find that U/S 34 of  SURFAESI Act,2002 no Civil Court or other authority shall have jurisdiction to

entertain any proceeding in respect of any matter which a Debts Recovery Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal is empowered by or under this Act to determine and no injunction shall be granted by any court or other authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act or under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (51 of 1993). 

So in view of the legal bar stipulated under the section 34 of  SURFAESI Act,2002, we are of the opinion that this Forum has no jurisdiction to deal with the Consumer Complaint field by the Complainant as the said Consumer complaint has been filed after the notice dated 01/04/2019 issued by the O.P. Bank U/S 13(2)  of  SURFAESI Act,2002 to the Complainant.

Hence, we have allowed the petition dated 19/06/2019 filed by the O.Ps. 

Consequently, the Consumer complaint filed by the Complainant Sri Tridip Saha is dropped . Resultantly the interim order dated 24/05/2019 passed by this Forum shall also stand vacated.