Order No. 3 date: 26-11-2014

Sri Debasis Bhattacharya

Ld. Advocates for the parties are present.  Respondent files BNA with copy to the Appellant.  The appeal is taken up for hearing.

Ld. Advocate for the Appellant submits that in so many times, the loan agreement and other relevant papers have been called for from the Respondents by him verbally, but without success, and thereafter, the Lawyer’s notice was effected on the Respondents, one after another, which also did not yield any fruitful result.  As such, the complaint case ensued.  But, at the first instance and threshold, the complaint has been rejected by the Ld. District Forum, which is devoid of any merit, and be set aside.

Ld. Advocate for the Respondents, on the other hand, submits that the claim of the Appellant is a futile one.  After receiving the notice issued by his Ld. Advocate of the Complainant, appropriate reply has been given to the Appellant, and lastly by a letter dated 03-02-2014, outstanding amount of Rs. 1,79,043/- as on 31-01-2014 was outlined against the Appellant.  She further makes out that the Appellant is a habitual defaulter in payment of loan amount and that the contract in question for the said loan was executed long back in the year 1998 and after about 16 years, he has come up with such a nature of complaint, alleging non-receipt of loan agreement, etc, which has no merit at all.  She further makes out that the Demand Notice dated 14-03-2014 sent under the Securisitation & Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 has been duly received by the Appellant on 17-03-2014, and afterwards, he lodged the instant complaint ostensibly to avoid penalty.  Further and noticeably, Section 34 of the said Act bars the jurisdiction of any Civil Court to entertain any suit or proceedings in like matter.  She cites a decision of this Commission in FA/709/2013, in which it was held that in case of default in payment of the loan amount by the person concerned, there stands no deficiency in service of OP in question and he losses the status of a consumer thereby.  She also cites a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 9771/2013. 

Considering the submission of both sides and on perusal of the materials on record, besides keeping in mind the position of law, we do not find any iota of deficiency in service on the part of the Respondents, as elucidated in the impugned order.  There is nothing to hold against the impugned order.  So, it must sustain. 

In the result, the appeal fails.

Hence,

ORDERED

That the appeal be and the same is dismissed on contest against the Respondents, but there will be no order as to costs.  The impugned order is hereby affirmed.