F I N A L   O R D E R

This is a case U/S 12, of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for an award declaring that the sale of the property as mentioned in the schedule of the complaint is

void, illegal and anti consumer policy and directing the O.Ps. to pay the liability of Rs.7,34,536/-, to pay @ of Rs.25,000/- per month, to waive all imposed interest on the bank liability, to pay the litigation cost, to pay Rs.19,00,000/- as compensation, to pay Rs.1,00,000/- for mental agony and for other reliefs.

The complainant’s case in short is that the complainant No. 1 for the purpose of self employment took a loan of Rs.9,26,292/- from Debinagar Branch of the O.P. Bank in 2008 vide A/c No.CC-1087250020267 and she started  electronic item shop named and styled KARUNA INFOCOM at  Station Road, Raiganj. Said business was being run by her son Dipankar Sarkar but due to lack of experience the entire loan amount was extinguished for which the complainant’s son received a mental shock and he has became a mental patient. There was no way to revive the business and as such the business was collapsed. On 31.08.2010 the loan amount raised in the tune of Rs.10,71,996/-The complainant reported the above fact to the O.Ps. with a request to waive the interest and to allow easy installments to repay  the loan account. But the O.Ps. did not pay any heed to the request. Suddenly the petitioner was surprised to note that the O.P. took repressive measure against the complainant and initiated to sale the property as mentioned in the schedule of the complaint by publishing sale notice in the Newspaper. For such unfair business practice the complainant has been suffering very much. Ultimately the O.Ps. sold the property as mentioned in the schedule of the complaint. The complainant made several correspondences with the O.Ps. to save the property and to repay the loan account but no fruitful result was achieved. Hence this case was filed with the prayer as mentioned above.

The O.P. Nos. 1, 2 and 3 contested this case by filing written version stating inter alia that the case is not maintainable and this Forum has no jurisdiction to try this case. It has been further stated by these O.Ps. that the O.Ps. after verification of the documents sanctioned a cash credit limit for Rs.10,00,000/- on 10.11.2005 in favour of the complainant No. 1 for the purpose of electrical goods business namely KARUNA INFOCOM, at the time of sanction of said loan the complainant executed necessary documents in favour of the O.Ps. and she deposited original title deed and other necessary papers. In spite of repeated requests the complainant continuously failed to remit the loan amount, on 30.09.2010 said loan account became irregular and NPA category as per RBI guidelines, thereafter the complainant was severally requested to take necessary steps for repayment overdue amount, on 09.11.2010 the O.Ps. issued 60 days notice U/S 13(2) of the SARFAESI  Act, 2002 to the complainant but the complainant did not pay any heed, then on 09.03.2011 the O.Ps. being a secured creditor took Symbolic possession of the assets as per provisions of Sec.13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and published sale notice on 10.12.2011 in a leading daily Newspaper and the fact was duly intimated to the complainant by serving  a Lawyers Notice, thereafter the O.Ps. took physical possession of the assets, in the matter Ld. District Magistrate assisted the O.Ps. It has been further stated by the above O.Ps. that the complainant suppressing the above fact made this complaint with false allegations and accordingly the case is liable to be dismissed with cost.

                                                   -3-

The O.P. No.4 appeared in this case but subsequently he did not contest this case appearing on the date of hearing. Accordingly this case was heard ex-parte against him.

DECISIONS WITH REASONS

We have carefully perused the evidence adduced by the contesting parties, the contents of the complaint petition and the written version. It has already been mentioned in the foregoing lines that the complainant has made this complaint with the prayer for declaration that the sale of the asset as mentioned in the schedule of the complaint petition is void and illegal and anti consumer policy. During the course of hearing both the parties have admitted that the loan account as mentioned above has become irregular and NPA category as per RBI guidelines and subsequently the O.Ps. took the Symbolic possession of the schedule property as per provision of Sec.13(4) of SARFAESI Act, 2002 and then observing all the formalities the O.Ps. took physical possession of the schedule property. It is also admitted that thereafter the property in question has been sold out to a third party and such sale has become absolute.

As per provisions Consumer Protection Act, 1986 this Forum has jurisdiction on the commission in respect of matters where either there is defect in goods or there is deficiency in service or there has been an unfair and restrictive trade practice or in the matter of charging of excessive price only. So no doubt this Forum has no jurisdiction to pass any order declaring the sale in question is void and illegal. Accordingly we observe that this case is not at all maintainable. It is essential to mention that other prayers of the complainant, are co related with the prayer as mentioned in column No.1 of the prayer portion of the complaint petition. As the prayer No.1 for declaration does not stand, the question of consideration of other prayers,  does not arise.

Moreover the parties to this case admitted during the course of argument that the loan account has become irregular and NPA category as per RBI guidelines and the O.Ps. have taken symbolic and physical possession of the property and thereafter the property has been sold as per provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2002. In the above premises it could be safely said that the loan transaction in question has been closed with the sale of the property and accordingly the relationship of consumer and service provider between the complainant and the O.Ps. has been seized. As at present there is no relationship of consumer and service provider between the parties to this case, this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this case.

In view of the discussions held hereinbefore we are of the opinion that the case is not maintainable  and this Forum has no jurisdiction to try this case .

In view of the discussions held hereinbefore the case fails.

Fees paid is correct.

Hence, it is    

                      ordered,

that the complaint case being No.08/2013 is dismissed on contest against the O.P. Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and ex-parte against the rest without cost.

Copy of this order be supplied to the parties of this case, free of cost.