By this Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), petitioners / complainants in the original Complaint, has challenged the order dated 31.10.2017 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission West Bengal (for short “the State Commission”) in Revision Petition No.177 of 2017, whereby the appeal filed by the respondent herein against the order of the District Forum challenging the maintainability of the complaint was allowed and it was held that complaint was not maintainable.  

2.         The brief facts of the case are that petitioner no.1 took educational loan from the respondents for pursuing a six month carrier pilot training course from Pan Am International Flight, Academy, USA.  A loan amount of Rs.7,50,000/- was sanctioned and received by the petitioners on 06.11.2007 wherein father of petitioner no.1 i.e. petitioner no.2 was co-applicant on agreed terms and conditions which were enumerated in detail in the sanction letter of the loan.  The loan, however, was not re-paid.  However, supplementary education loan agreement for an amount of Rs.10,87,6409.78/- was executed in favour of the petitioners on acknowledgment of the debt and the liability.  The loans were not re-paid even thereafter in full.  Subsequently, loan amount was declared NPA on 24.10.2012 and an application being O.A. No. 129 of 2017  was filed before the Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Kolkata on 16.03.2017 for recovery of the loan amount.  Thereafter, petitioners filed complaint case before the District Forum on 04.05.2017 during the pendency of the said O.A. before the Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Kolkata.  Several reliefs were sought in the complaint.  The objection raised by the respondents was that complaint was not maintainable in view of the legal bar to the same pursuant to Section 18 read with section 34 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993.  The District Forum rejected the contentions of the respondent and held in its order that complaint was maintainable.  The said order was challenged by the respondent  before the State Commission.  In the State Commission, it has been held that complaint was not maintainable in view of bar of jurisdiction of any other Court under Debt Recovery Tribunal. 

3.         It is argued that education loan is not a debt and the proceedings have been initiated by the respondents just to subvert the just claim of the complainants.  It is argued that respondents had charged rate of interest in excess than what was permissible under the RBI Rules and hence there was deficiency in service on the part of the respondents and the complaint was thus maintainable.

4.         I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the parties. Two dates are important in this case.  First date is the date on which the education loan was declared NPA i.e. on 24.10.2012.  The appeal against the said declaration was filed before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, which  was rejected. The respondents initiated proceedings under Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 on 16.03.2017 and complaint was filed by the complainant only thereafter.  Section 18 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 reads as under:

“18.     Bar of Jurisdiction :  On and from the appointed day, no  Court or either authority shall have, or be entitled to exercise any jurisdiction, powers or authority ( except the Supreme Court  and a High Court exercising jurisdiction under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution) in relation to the matters specified in section 17:

xxxxxxxx such proceedings.”

5.         The aforesaid section expressly bars the jurisdiction of all the Courts and authorities except Supreme Court and High Court exercising jurisdiction under articles 226 and 227. 

6.         Section 34 Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993  reads as under:

“34.     Act to have over-riding effect :

(1) Save as provided under sub-section (2), the provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act.

2.         xxxxxxxxx”

7.         The aforesaid section gives over-riding effect to the said Act.  Similar issue was decided by this Commission in the matter of Yashwant G Ghaisas Vs. Bank of Maharashtra decided on 06.12.2012 in CC No. 302 of 2012, wherein the complaint was dismissed on the ground that consumer fora have no jurisdiction to try this case.  This order was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the order in Civil Appeal No. 1359 of 2013 decided on 01.03.2013.  The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said matter has observed as under:

“The National Commission is not empowered to arrogate to itself the powers which come within the jurisdiction of debt recovery tribunal.  This matter is purely covered within the jurisdiction of DRT or DRAT. If there is any grievance against the notice under section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act that should be brought to the notice of the concerned authority.  It is well settled that main creditor and the guarantors are equally responsible.  There lies no rub for the bank to take action against the guarantor directly.  It cannot be alleged that he is adopting the policy of pick and choose.  From the allegations stated above,  there appears to be no deficiency on the part of the opposite party.  In case the bankers are working within the ambit of SARFAESI Act, it cannot be said to be deficiency on the part of the bank. It must be established that there is deficiency on the part of the bank.  In that case this Commission can take action.  For the reasons stated  above, the complaint is dismissed at the stage of its admission.  Nothing will prelude the complainants from approaching Forum as per law.”

We have heard Shri Dhruv Mehta, learned counsel for the appellants and perused the record.

In our view, the complaint filed by the appellants was thoroughly misconceived and was nothing but an attempt to frustrate the action, which could be taken by the respondent under section 13 (4) of the 2002 Act. Therefore, the National Commission did not commit any error by refusing to entertain the same.

With the above observation, the appeal is dismissed.”

8.         In view of the above settled proposition  of law, I find no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the impugned order which may call for interference in this revision petition. Revision Petition being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.