- Tapan Kumar Chatterjee and
- Shely Chatterjee
Both of Ichapur Prantik, Ichapur, P.O. Nawabganj,
P.S. Noapara, 24 Pgs (N)-743144 _________ Complainant
____Versus____
- ICICI Home Finance Limited,
Landmark Building, 224, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata-700020.
- Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd.
50, Chowringee Road, IISCO House, B-Wing, 10th Floor, Kolkata-700071.
- Customer Grievance Cell,
Ground Floor, Reserve Bank of India, N.S. Road, Kolkata-700001. ________ Opposite Parties
Present : Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member.
Smt. Samiksha Bhattacharya, Member
Order No. 24 Dated 05-09-2014
The case of the complainant in short is that complainants and o.p. no.1 entered into an agreement on 20.3.03 and accordingly o.p. no.1 has disbursed the loan of Rs.3,50,000/- to complainants vide loan account no.LBBRR00000350045. Complainant no.1 used to pay the EMI regularly but later on due to financial constraint he failed to pay the said EMI. All on a sudden o.p. no.2 is claiming the rest of the loan amount at a time. The Asstt. Manager of Retail Resolution started sending their agents for collection of the loan amount from the complainant. There is no instruction on behalf of o.p. no.1 to make payment of the said loan amount to o.p. no.2. O.p. no.2 did not produce any document issued by o.p. no.1 as asked by complainants. On 6.7.11 and 19.7.11 o.p. no.2 again sent their agents to the complainants’ house and demanded Rs.3,06,638.04 and they handed over two notices dt.6.7.11 and 19.7.11 to complainant no.2. Complainants have disputed the amount demanded by o.p. no.2 and wanted full statement of account in connection with their loan being account no. LBBRR00000350045. Complainant no.2 has prayed to expunge her name from the loan account as she is not connected with the said land for which the loan has been sanctioned for construction of the building. Complainants have also stated that they are not liable to pay interest and other charges levied by o.ps. during the period of non payment of EMI. So complainants have filed the instant case praying for compensation and legal expenses.
O.p. nos.1 to 3 appeared before the Forum and filed w/vs.
In their w/v o.p. no.1 has stated that they have granted a loan of Rs.3,50,000/- to the complainant on terms and conditions contained in a written agreement under the loan account no. LBBRR00000350045. In spite of bound and obliged to do so the complainants defaulted in making payment of several EMIs under the said agreement. In terms of said agreement, as on June 2009, a sum of Rs.7,27,000/- was due and payable by the complainants to o.p. no.1. O.p. no.1 by a deed of assignment executed in 20.9.08 transferred its all rights title and interest in respect of the loan account of the complainants in favour of o.p. no.2 and thereby handed over all cheques to o.p. no.2. O.p. no.1 by its letter duly intimated the fact to the complainants and requested them to directly pay the amount to o.p. no.2 from the date of assignment. Other all allegations are denied by o.p. no.1 and in view of the facts of assignment of loan account there is no cause of action against o.p. no.1 and hence the case is liable to be dismissed with cost.
In their w/v o.p. no.2 has also denied all material allegations interalia stated that complainants failed and/or neglected to repay their dues. As such, the account of the complainants was declared as Non Performing Assets (NPA). The loan was availed of by mortgaging all the piece and parcel of the property in Mouza Ichapur, J. L. No.3, Touzi No.407, Khatian No.4767, 4858, 3465, Dag No.3087, Dist. North 24 Parganas. O.p. no.1 duly issued a notice dt.7.4.10 u/s 13 (2) of SARFAESI Act, calling upon the complainants to repay their dues within 60 days from the date of notice. But the complainants again failed to repay the dues. Subsequently, o.p. no.1 issued and affixed a possession notice dt.19.7.11. Complainants never take any step to pay their outstanding. On 16.9.11 o.p. no.2 called upon the complainants to settle the account. But complainants did not take any step. So there is no deficiency in service on their part and as such, the complaint petition is liable to be dismissed with cost.
In their w/v o.p. no.3 stated that there is no cause of action against o.p. no.3. RBI cannot be said to be rendering any banking service to the complainant nor was there any element of hiring service. So the case is liable to be dismissed with cost.
Decision with reasons:
We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular. It is admitted fact that o.p. no.1 has sanctioned a loan to the complainants amounting to Rs.3,50,000/-. It is also admitted fact that by a deed of assignment o.p. no.1 transferred its all rights, title and interest to o.p. no.2. From the documents we have observed that complainants have failed to pay their EMIs and they are regular defaulter to pay the EMIs. Accordingly, their account was declared as NPA. We find no deficiency in service on the part of o.p. no.2 as there is an outstanding amount and o.p. no.2 has called upon the complainants to settle the matter. But complainants have failed and neglected to pay the amount. Moreover, the notice was issued under SARFAESI Act. Demand notice u/s 13 (2) of SARFAESI Act was issued by o.p. no.2 and thereafter o.p. no.2 took steps u/s 13 (4) of the said Act and took possession of the subject property by affixing a notice on 19.7.11. Once the steps u/s 13 (4) has been initiated the only remedy available to the complainant is before the Ld. Debt Recovery Tribunal u/s 17 of the said Act. Section 34 of SARFAESI Act restrains jurisdiction of any civil court regarding the dispute arises under this Act. So, we have no jurisdiction to try and entertain the instant case. So, the complainants have failed to substantiate the case and are not entitled to relief as prayed for.
Hence, ordered,
That the case is dismissed on contest without cost against the o.ps.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
