1. Bipradas Mitra,
2. Ashima Mitra,

                Both residing at

                MIC 2/15, Birati Housing Estate,     

                P.O. Nimta, P.S. Nimta, Kolkata-49.                                                               _________ Complainant

____Versus____

1. ICICI Home Finance Ltd.

                Regd. Office at Landmark,

                Race Course Circle, Vadodara 390007  and

                Branch Office at 3A, Gurusaday Road,

                P.S. Ballygunge, Kolkata-19     and

                Central Plaza, 2/6, Sarat Bose Road,             

                4^th Floor, P.S. Ballygunge, Kolkata-20.                                               

1. Arcil Arms IISCO House,

10^th Floor, Rare Buyilding,

50, Chowringhee Road,

Kolkata-71, P.S. Park Street.                                                                             ________ Opposite Parties

Present :                Sri Sankar Nath Das, Hon’ble President

                          Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member.

                                Smt.  Samiksha Bhattacharya, Member

Order No.    31     Dated   29-09-2014

            The case of the complainant in short is that as agreed between the complainants and o.p. no.1 a loan agreement was entered into on 26.2.03 and by such agreement a sum of Rs.4 lakhs was sanctioned to the complainants. It is pertinent to mention that disbursement was made in the month of August 2003 but EMI started o be collected from April 2003. In terms of the said loan agreement the complainants were communicated that EMI in this matter was fixed at Rs.5121/-month.

                O.p. no.1 on 1.4.06 revised the terms of loan whereby the adjustable rate of interest was increased but amount of Rs. EMI was kept as it is i.e. Rs.5121/-.

                In terms of such loan agreement the complainants had paid EMI month by month but all on a sudden the complainants received a letter dt.27.7.06 from Pradip Chakraborty, Advocate who allegedly stated in the said letter that the cheque amount of Rs.1,19,850/- drawn by the complainants has been dishonoured. After received such letter the complainants were completely faced a set back both mental as well as financial as the complainants could not move out as regards issuance of such cheque in favour of the bank in view of the fact that all the EMIs have been paid. Later on the complainants remembered that at the time of granting of loan a blank cheque of United Bank of India, Nimta Branch was collected by o.ps. from the complainants on the pretext that the same woiuld be held by way of security but question of filling of the said cheque and/or depositing the same can never arise since there has not been any claim as regards any amount from o.ps. and there can never be any question rising any claim in as much as the complainants have al along paid EMI and have been holding the necessary receipt issued by o.ps.

                The said complaint case as numbered as 267 of 2006 and o.p. no.1 appeared and ultimately the said case was settled out of court and o.p. no.1 as agreed to pay a sum of Rs.2 lakhs to the complainants. Accordingly a sum of Rs.1,43,338/- was adjusted against the EMI amount and the balance amount of a sum of Rs.56,662/- was paid through ICICI Bankers cheque being 188063 dt.27.9.08 in favour of the complainants.

                Accordingly to such settlement the complainants also paid 12 post dated cheques in favour of o.p. no.1 for the month of October 2008 to September 2009 and the said cheques were duly encashed.

                On 2.2.10 the complainants received a notice dt.24.1.109 from one Rohit Das and Associates who claimed a sum of Rs.2,32,946.31 paise from the complainants an also further stated that the said loan account was transferred to o.p. no.2. The complainants have not received any intimation from o.p. no.1 that the loan account of the complainants have been transferred to o.p. no.2 and on the contrary no written document of transfer have been forwarded to the complainants by o.p. no.1.Hence, the case was filed by the complainant with the prayers contained in the petition of complaint.

Decision with reasons.

                O.ps. had entered their appearance in this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations labeled against them and prayed for dismissal of the case. Ld. lawyer of o.ps. in the course of argument submitted that the case has got no merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.

                We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular and we find that o.p. no.2 issued statutory notice u/s 13 (2) of he Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and o.p. no.2 for the enforcement of security interest against the complainant issued the same and Sec 34 of the Act states that no Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which Debts Recovery Tribunal is empowered and Sec 35 of the Act states that this Act shall have over riding power in case of any inconsistency in any other law for the time being enforce. We find that this Forum does not have any jurisdiction to entertain the matter in the context of the fact and circumstances disclosed on record.

                In view of the findings above and on perusal of the entire materials on record we are of the view that this Forum does not have any jurisdiction to entertain the instant matter the same is liable to be dismissed.

                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.