The Manager Indian Bank V/S Sadiq Hussain S/o Haji Hussain - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Raichur

CC/08/70

Sadiq Hussain S/o Haji Hussain - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager Indian Bank - Opp.Party(s)

A.Chandrashekar

21 Feb 2009

ORDER

DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,DC Office Compound, Sath Kacheri
consumer case(CC) No. CC/08/70

Sadiq Hussain S/o Haji Hussain						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
The Manager Indian Bank e Authorised Officer Indian Bank						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

JUDGEMENT By Sri. N.H. Savalagi President:- This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of Consumer Protection Act for deficiency of service by the complainant Sadiq Hussain against the two Respondents- (1) Manager Indian Bank Gunj Road, Raichur (2) Authorized Officer, Indian Bank Raichur. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:- The complainant is a businessman and proprietor of M/s. Bharat Hard-Ware situated at Arab Mohalla Chowk, Raichur for his development of his business he has obtained a loan of Rs. 6,50,000/- from the Respondents Bank by executing all necessary documents and offering collateral security. He has been transacting with the Respondent Bank regularly and efficiently till 2007 and thereafter as the Respondent was not giving Statement of Accounts concerning to his OCC A/c. No. 460205935 maintained by him. Respondents have intentionally exaggerated loan amount of the complainant, as such he raised a dispute with the Manager of Respondent Bank demanding details of all the Receipts & Payments i.e, cheques & vouchers of his above said account. But the Respondent Bank has not given details as sought for. Ultimately he submitted an Application U/s. 6(1) and 7(1) of Right to Information Act 2005 in the prescribed Form No-A requesting Respondents to issue certified copies of cheque leaves, & remittance, counter folios and details pertaining to Bharat Hard-Ware in current account No. 460205935 from September 2005, the date of disbursement of above said loan till the date of his application i.e, 08-09-08 in pursuance of notice issued by the Respondents to him U/s. 13(2) of the Securitization and Re-construction of Financial Assets & Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002. His application was submitted to the Respondent personally and the Respondent Bank has put the seal & signature on the copy of his application acknowledging the receipts of this application. But the Respondents have not given the copies as prayed for by him which is very necessary to ascertain his correct dues with the Respondent Bank. The in-action of the Respondents in not giving the copies of cheques and remittance counter folios even more than two months constitute deficiency of service by the Respondents. It is further submitted that without settling the dispute regarding his account with the Respondent Bank and without giving the copies of cheques leaves and remittance counter folio as sought for by him for finalising and rectifying the account and balance over, but the Respondents now are bent upon to recover the exaggerated loan amount by attaching his properties offered as collateral security with sole intention to cause loss and hardship to him. The Respondents have even went on to publish notice U/s. 13(2) of SARFRA Act in Hindu Newspaper dt. 24-09-08. This act of Respondents is totally illegal and it shows its illegal intention to harass the complainant even without settling the dispute regarding the account. In-addition to this the Field Officer and the Respondent Bank are frequently visiting his house and terrorizing his family members. There is a bonafide dispute to the tune of Rs. Three Lakh in the above account maintained by the Respondents and the Respondent being the responsible public institution it cannot behave rashly against the complainant. Hence for all these reasons the complainant has sought for direction to the Respondent to settle his cash credit account bearing No. 460205935 and after settling the account by providing necessary documents as sought by the complainant, the Respondent be directed to grant reasonable time to him to settle the dues of the Respondents after correction. 2. Along with complaint, the complainant has filed IA.No-1 seeking Interium Stay Order against the Respondents from attaching & taking possession of his property offered for collateral purposes. After hearing on admission of the complaint and on IA.No-1, this Forum considering prima-facie case admitted the complaint for enquiry and issued Interium Stay Order as sought for in IA.No-1. 3. In response to service of notice on the complaint and on IA.No-1, Respondents 1 & 2 appeared through counsel and initially filed objection to IA.No-1 and subsequently the order on IA-No-1 was kept in-abeyance till the order on complaint and consequently Respondents filed written version. In the written version the Respondents have contended that the allegations in Para-1 of his complaint are in-correct. In-fact the total limit of loan sanctioned to the complainant was to the tune of Rs. 9,50,000/- and it is Open Cash Credit facility and current account. He can draw the amount at any time within the limit of Rs. 9,50,000/- and go on crediting the same according to his convenience. As such it is running current account. Any amount paid or deposited in any manner, he will have a counter folio. In-spite of it the complainant has un-necessarily filed an application under Right to Information Act in-order to create litigation to dupe the public money. Hence there is no question of deficiency of service. The Securitization Act is a Special Act which came into force for the year 2002 and Section 34 of the said Act specifically debars the jurisdiction of Civil Court or any other Authority including this Forum. Hence the application is not maintainable. The Respondent Bank in-fact has supplied the details of account to the complainant on 24-10-07 and on 28-07-08 the copies of said details supplied are produced for perusal. Only to defame the Respondent Bank, the complainant has moved this Forum. There is no any negligence or deficiency of service on the part of Respondent Bank. Only with an intention to defeat the proceedings under Securitization Act before the District Commissioner, Raichur, the complainant has filed the present application by suppressing real facts. Hence for all these reasons the Respondents have sought for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary cost. 4. The Respondents Bank has filed objection to IA.No-1 for rejection of IA. In the enclosed affidavit, the Assistant Manager of the Bank sworn to the fact that the complainant is securitized debtor and has failed to clear the due amount. In pursuance of that Respondent No- 1 & 2 have taken action under the Securitization Act and the said proceedings are posted for taking possession and auction of the property. Under such circumstances granting the stay order against bank is illegal, apart from this when parallel proceedings are pending, this Forum has no power and jurisdiction. There is an appeal provision U/s. 17 of the Securitization Act as such the complaint is not maintainable in this Forum even otherwise as per section 13(4) of Securitization Act there is a bar for taking any legal action. As such the Stay Order is fit to be vacated. 5. During the course of enquiry the complainant has filed his sworn-affidavit by way of examination-in-chief as PW-1. In rebuttal the Manager of Respondent No- 1 Bank has filed his affidavit by way of examination-in-chief as RW-1. On behalf of (9) documents have been got marked as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-9. In-rebuttal (6) documents have been got marked at Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-6 for the Respondents. 6. Heard the arguments of both sides and perused the records. The following points arise for our consideration and determination: 1. Whether the complainant proves deficiency of service by the Respondent Bank in not furnishing the required information as sought for by him, as alleged.? 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for.? 7. Our finding on the above points are as under:- 1. In the affirmative. 2. As per final order for the following REASONS POINT NO.1:- 8 At the very out-set the L.C. for the Respondents argued that the Securitization Act is a Special enactment which came into force in the year 2002 and as per section 34 of the said Act, it specifically bars Civil Court or any Authority like this Forum from granting any relief. Hence this Forum has no jurisdiction and therefore the complaint is not maintainable. In-support of his arguments the LC has relied on two rulings of Honble High Court reported in (1) KCCR 2008(3) Page 1562 Head Note which reads as under: CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908__Section 16__Jurisdiction of Civil Court__Court not having jurisdiction to entertain the case disposes of the case__Whether the party would seek in Appellate Court on same reasoning__No. and (2) KCCR 2008(3) Short Note No. 206 Head Note which reads as under: CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908__Section 9__Jurisdiction of Civil Court__When can be excluded__Held, jurisdiction of Civil Court to deal with civil right can be excluded by legislature, but the statutory provision in this regard must be express and clear. If the proceeding and the order passed therein are completely without jurisdiction, the bar to the maintainability to the suit in the ordinary Civil Court would not apply. As against this the LC for the complainant argued that when banks like the Respondent Bank advance loan or accept deposits etc., they render service to the customers-consumer so banks are amenable to the C.P. Act and thereby this Forum is having jurisdiction and so the complainant is maintainable. In-support of his argument he has relied on decision of Honble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1999 Supreme Court Page No. 787 Head Note D which reads as under: (D) Consumer Protection Act (68 of 1986), S.1__Applicability__Statutory authorities, local bodies etc., are as much amenable as private bodies. A government or semi-government body or a local authority is as much amenable to the Act as any other private body rendering similar service. In absence of any indication, express or implied there is no reason to hold that authorities created by statute are beyond purview of the Act. When banks advance loan or accept deposit or provide facility of locker they undoubtedly render service. A State Bank or nationalized bank renders as much service as private bank. No distinction can be drawn in private and public transport or insurance companies. Even the supply of electricity or gas which throughout the country is being made, mainly by statutory authorities is included in it. The legislative intention is thus clear to protect a consumer against services rendered even by statutory bodies. The test therefore, is not if a person against whom complaint is made is a statutory body but whether the nature of the duty and function performed by its is service or even facility. From the dictum laid-down in the decision of Honble Supreme Court when the banks like the Respondents advance loan or accept deposits or private facility of locker which un-doubtedly render service and no distinction can be drawn in private and public transport or insurance companies. The legislative intention is to protect a consumer against the services rendered even by statutory body. Therefore we are not in agreement with the arguments advanced by the LC for the Respondent and therefore the complainant being the consumer within the meaning of C.P. Act and so this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. 9. Now let us consider Point No-1. There is no dispute that the complainant being the proprietor of M/s. Bharat Hard-Ware situated at Arab Mohalla, Chowk Raichur is having OCC Account bearing No. 460205935 with the Respondent Bank and has obtained a loan for the development of his business by executing all necessary documents and by offering his properties for collateral security. It is the case of the complainant that he has obtained a loan of Rs. 6,50,000/- from the Respondent Bank and not Rs. 9,50,000/- and thereby there is a bonafide dispute to the tune of Rs. Three Lakh in his accounts maintained by Respondent Bank. It is also his case that he raised this dispute with the Manager of the Respondent Bank demanding the details of all the Receipts & Payments made by him by way of cheque leaves, vouchers but the Respondent Bank did not furnish the same. Ultimately he filed an application U/s. 6(1) & 7(1) of Right to Information Act 2005 requesting the Respondents to issue certified copies of cheque leaves and remittance counter folios and details in his current account from September-2005, the date of disbursement of loan till the date of his application dt. 08-09-08 in-pursuance of notice issued by the Respondent U/s. 13(2) of SARFRA Act but in-spite of that the Respondents have not supplied the information as sought for by him which are very necessary to ascertain the correct dues with the Respondent. The Respondents Bank without settling his dispute regarding the accounts and without furnishing copies of the cheque leaves remittance counter-folios have issued notice U/s. 13(2) of Act even published the same in Hindu Paper dt. 24-09-08 and bent upon to sell his properties which are offered for collateral securities of the loan. Hence this act of the Respondent Bank in not supplying the required information of his loan account amounts to deficiency in service. So he has sought for direction to the Respondent to settle his cash credit account by providing necessary documents as sought for by him and to grant reasonable time to the complainant to settle the dues of the Respondent after correction. 10. The Respondents have contended that the total limit of loan has been sanctioned to the tune of Rs. 9,50,000/- and he can draw the amount at any time within the limit of 9,50,000/- and go on crediting the same according to his convenience. As such it is running current account. Apart from this the complainant has executed all necessary documents. Any amount paid or deposited in any manner he will have counter slip, inspite of it a complaint has filed an application under the Right to Information Act in-order to create litigation to dupe the public money. It is for the complainant to produce the counter-folios then only he request for documents of bank. The Respondent Bank has supplied the details of the account to the complainant on 29-10-07 & 28-07-08. In-spite of that the complainant has filed the present complaint. Hence there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Respondent. 11. The complainant has produced in all (9) documents at Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-9. Ex.P-1 is the Copy of Application filed under Right to Information Act along with Xerox copy of Application Form-A of the Right to Information Act with postal order for Rs. 150/-. This application shows the Respondent Bank Seal & Signature in-token of receipt of said application by the Respondent Bank. Ex.P-2 is the notice issued by the Respondent dt. 04-09-08 U/s. 13(2) of the Securitization and Re-construction of Financial Assistance & Enforcement Security Interest Act 2002. Ex.P-3 is the Letter issued by the Respondent to the complainant dt. 26-09-08 along with Statement of Accounts. Ex.P-4 is the Newspaper Cutting dt. 24-09-08 with regard to demand notice issued under Securitization Act. Ex.P-5 is the Office Copy of Objection sent to the Respondent by the complainant dt. 09-09-08 with postal acknowledgement. Ex.P-6 is Office Copy of the complainant letter dt. 06-10-07 to the Respondent seeking details of his account with Respondent. Ex.P-7 is the Office Copy of the complainants letter dt. 26-11-07 issued to the Respondent seeking details of Pass Book and Statement of Account from 01-02-05 to 15-02-06. Ex.P-8 is Raichur Vani Daily Kannada Newspaper dt. 29-11-08 notifying the sale of properties offered as collateral security. Ex.P-9 Notice issued by the Respondents to the complainant dt. 26-11-08 which was received to him on 02-12-08. 12. The Respondents have also produced (6) documents at Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-6. Ex.R-1 is the Xerox copy of letter of the complainant to the Respondent for issuing the details of cheque leaves and withdrawal slip etc., Ex.R-2 is the letter of the Respondent dt. 13-10-08 to the complainant in-reply to his application dt. 08-09-08. Ex.R-3 is the Copy of Statement of Account of the complainant bearing No. 460205935 with Respondent Bank. Ex.R-4 is the Additional Reply Notice dt. 15-09-08 given by the Advocate for the complainant to the Respondent. Ex.R-5 is the Notice dt. 25-09-08 issued by the Respondent in reply to Notice dt. 15-09-08 (Ex.R-4). Ex.R-6 is the Copy of Statement of Accounts from 01-08-07 to 30-08-07. 13. Ex.R-3 the Statement of Accounts dt. 18-12-08 produced by the Respondents goes to show the Account pertains from 01-01-05 to 07-10-08. It further shows that the complainant was transacting his OCC A/c. by withdrawing the loan amount and by depositing his amount. A close perusal of this account it shows excess deposits are made for some time and excess withdrawals are made for some time as against the deposits resulting outstanding dues of Rs. 9,04,580.58 ps as on 29-01-07 and Rs. 10,36,626.58 ps as on 31-07-08 and Rs. 10,68,188/- as on 07-10-08. Ex.P-2 the Notice issued U/s. 13(2) of Securitization Act by the Respondent Bank shows the outstanding dues of Rs. 10,36,626.58 ps. as 31-07-08. From the Extract of Account at Ex.R-3 we do not find any deposits/payments made by the complainant against the outstanding dues at Rs. 9,04,580.58 ps as on 29-10-07. Of-course the complainant was allowed to withdraw the loan amount upto 9,50,000/- as contended by the Respondents, but it appears that the Respondent has let-loosed the complainant even to withdraw the loan amount beyond stipulated limit of Rs. 9,50,000/- as seen from Extract of Account. 14. The L.C. for the complainant argued that for the first time on 06-10-07 vide Ex.P-6 & on 26-11-07 vide Ex.P-7 the complainant had filed application for furnishing certified copies of (9) withdrawal slips pertaining to the dates from 18-03-06 to 03-05-06 and Pass book upto date entry, but the same was not furnished by the Respondent Bank. As there was a dispute of difference of Rs. Three Lakhs, he had sought for supply of certified copy of (9) withdrawal slips from 18-03-06 to 03-05-06, but the Respondent Bank instead of issuing the copies of withdrawals, had issued Demand Notice vide Ex.P-2 U/s. 13(2) of Securitization Act, for payment of Rs. 10,36,626.58 ps. within two months from the date of notice and consequence of failure to comply with the same. Even after the receipt of this notice at Ex.P-2, the complainant immediately sought for certified copies of cheque leaves, Remittance and counter folios and details of Account from September-2005 to September 2008 under Right to Information Act as per Ex.P-1 and he also filed Objections to the said Notice U/s. 13(2) of the Act in detail as per Ex.P-5 dt. 09-09-08. In this Objection at Ex.P-5 he had also requested for supplying the cheque leaves and remittance vouchers for verification and has stated that after ascertaining his correct liability he is ready to clear of all the dues. But the Respondent Bank without heeding to his request had issued Notice of Intended Sale of the Properties offered as security as per Ex.P-9 and so this act of the Respondent Bank amounts to deficiency in service. The L.C. repeatedly submitted that the complainant is ready to pay the dues provided the Respondent Bank furnishes the required information sought for verification and correctness of the outstanding dues. 15. As against this L.C. for Respondents argued that the Respondent Bank has furnished extract of Statement of Accounts as per request of the complainant and this fact has been admitted at Para-5 of the Additional Objections (to the Notice U/s. 13(2) of Securitization Act) filed through his counsel on 15-09-08 vide Ex.R-4. So this impliedly go to show that the complainant was furnished with Statement of Accounts as sought for by him under Right to Information Act vide Ex.P-6 & Ex.P-7. The L.C. further argued that since the complainant has sought for certified copies of cheques and challans deposited by him from September 2005 to September 2008 which was voluminous and not permissible as per section 7 (9) of Right to Information Act, so the Respondent had expressed their in-ability to furnish the same as per their reply letter dt. 13-10-08 produced at Ex.R-2. 16. We find considerable force in the argument of the L.C. for the complainant. Admittedly, through Ex.P-6 the complainant has filed an application dt. 06-10-07 for furnishing certified copies of (9) withdrawals between 18-03-06 to 03-05-06 as detailed therein and through Ex.P-7 he had filed another application dt. 26-11-07 requesting the Respondent Bank for issuing Pass Book Entry from 23-11-05 upto date. But instead of furnishing the required information as sought for vide Ex.P-6 & Ex.P-7, the Respondent Bank has issued Notice U/s. 13(2) of Securitization Act dt. 04-09-08 vide Ex.P-2. In-pursuance of this notice, the complainant even filed an application for furnishing certified copies of cheque leaves and remittance, counter folios and details pertaining to his account from September 2005 to upto date as per Ex.P-1 and also filed his Objection to the said Notice as per Ex.P-5. In the said Objection at Ex.P-5, he has also stated the dispute of difference of Rs. Three Lakh in the liability and requested for settling his account with corresponding details of cheque leaves, remittance voucher with counter folio and has stated his readiness to clear all the dues after ascertaining his correct liability. This Objection Petition Ex.P-5 has been received by the Respondent Bank vide Postal Acknowledgement at Ex.P-5(1). The Respondent Bank has not produced any piece of evidence as to whether they had verified the loan accounts of the complainant as stated in his Objection Petition at Ex.P-5. So we do not know whether the Respondent Bank did verify the accounts of the complainant with regard to the difference of Rs. Three Lakh in the account as detailed in his Objection Petition at Ex.P-5 filed in pursuance of the Notice U/s. 13(2) of Securitization Act issued by the Respondent Bank. Even the Respondent Bank has not produced any evidence to show that they had verified the accounts and found it correct and that they have replied the same to the complainant. In the absence of the same it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that the request of the complainant made in his Objection Petition vide Ex.P-5 (regarding difference of Rs. Three Lakh in the outstanding liability) has been attended to by the Respondent Bank. On the contrary we find that the Respondent Bank has issued Notice of Intended Sale under 6(2) & 8(6) of Securitization Act for sale of the property offered as security on 26-11-08 vide Ex.P-9 and also got published the said Notice in Raichur Vani Kannada Daily Paper dt. 29-11-08 vide Ex.P-8. 17. As seen above the Statement of Accounts produced by the Respondent Bank at Ex.R-3 goes to show that the complainant has transacted OCC facility with the Respondent Bank by withdrawals of loan amount and also by making deposits. This statement shows that for some time the complainant has deposited excess amount against the loan withdrawal and for some time he has made excess withdrawals against the deposit. The last deposit made by him is at Rs. 9,000/- as on 29-10-07 by leaving outstanding dues of Rs. 9,04,580.58 ps. and thereafter it appears he has not made any deposits or withdrawals. This Statement of Accounts further shows that by adding interest and penal interest etc., the outstanding dues is shown at Rs. 10,36,626/- as on 31-07-08. If the last transaction made by the complainant on 29-10-07 is taken into account in the light of his application Ex.P-6 & Ex.P-7 through which the complainant sought for certified copies of (9) withdrawal slips vide Ex.P-6 dt. 06-10-07 and for issue of Pass Book with Entry vide Ex.P-7 dt. 26-11-07, then it shows that the dispute regarding correctness of the Account arose between the parties from this last transaction of the account as on 29-10-07. The Respondent Bank, it appears have not furnished required information as sought by the complainant and they have issued Notice U/s. 13(2) of the Act vide Ex.P-2 showing outstanding dues of Rs. Ten Lakh an odd and immediately the complainant sought for the certified copies of cheque leaves and remittance vouchers for the period from September-2005 to September-2008 under Right to Information Act vide Ex.P-1 and also filed his Objection Petition to the said Notice as per Ex.P-5 requesting the Respondent Bank for verifying the Accounts as there is difference of Rs. Three Lakh in his liability. It appears that the Respondent Bank without heeding to the request for verifying the accounts or even by replying to his request, have got issued the Intended Sale Notice vide Ex.P-9. If all these factors are taken into account it leads to deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent Bank in not heeding to the request made by the complainant vide Ex.P-6, Ex.P-7 & Ex.P-1 & Ex.P-5. If further shows that the Respondent Bank without heeding to the request of the complainant for verifying the Accounts and for supplying the required information which they are expected to do so. It natural shows that the Respondents have made use of the weapon of sale notice of properties of complainant and so this attitude of Respondent Bank clearly amounts to deficiency of service. Under these circumstances we find substance to hold that the complainant has proved deficiency of service by the Respondent Bank. Hence Point No-1 is answered in the affirmative. POINT NO.2:- 18. The complainant has sought for direction to the Respondent to settle his Cash Credit Account by making corrections and for providing necessary documents as sought for by him, and the Respondent be further directed to grant reasonable time to settle the dues of the Respondent Bank. 19. In-view of our discussion and finding on Point No-1, holding deficiency in service by the Respondent Bank in not furnishing the required information as sought for by the complainant, consequently we find substance in the reliefs sought for by the complainant for issuing directions to the Respondents to settle his account with necessary corrections if any and to furnish necessary information sought for by him and to provide reasonable time for payment of the outstanding dues. In case of failure in payment of dues by the complainant, then the Respondent Bank is at liberty to take appropriate action for recovery of the dues. In the result we pass the following order: ORDER The complaint of the complainant is allowed in part. The Respondents are directed to settle the outstanding dues with necessary corrections if any, and to furnish required information as per his application dt. 08-09-08 pertaining to his OCC Account under intimation to complainant and after giving reasonable time to the complainant for payment of outstanding dues, if he fails to do so, then the Respondents are at liberty to proceed with recovery proceedings. The Complainant is also directed to approach the Respondent Bank at the time of verification of the accounts and to comply the direction of Respondents in payment of outstanding dues after verification. Consequently I.A. No-1 is disposed of accordingly. There is no order as to cost. The Respondent shall comply this order within (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Office to furnish certified copy of this order to both the parties forth-with free of cost. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 21-02-09) Sd/- Sri. N.H. Savalagi, President, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Sri. Gururaj, Member, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Member. District Forum-Raichur.

JUDGEMENT By Sri. N.H. Savalagi President:- This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of Consumer Protection Act for deficiency of service by the complainant Sadiq Hussain against the two Respondents- (1) Manager Indian Bank Gunj Road, Raichur (2) Authorized Officer, Indian Bank Raichur. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:- The complainant is a businessman and proprietor of M/s. Bharat Hard-Ware situated at Arab Mohalla Chowk, Raichur for his development of his business he has obtained a loan of Rs. 6,50,000/- from the Respondents Bank by executing all necessary documents and offering collateral security. He has been transacting with the Respondent Bank regularly and efficiently till 2007 and thereafter as the Respondent was not giving Statement of Accounts concerning to his OCC A/c. No. 460205935 maintained by him. Respondents have intentionally exaggerated loan amount of the complainant, as such he raised a dispute with the Manager of Respondent Bank demanding details of all the Receipts & Payments i.e, cheques & vouchers of his above said account. But the Respondent Bank has not given details as sought for. Ultimately he submitted an Application U/s. 6(1) and 7(1) of Right to Information Act 2005 in the prescribed Form No-A requesting Respondents to issue certified copies of cheque leaves, & remittance, counter folios and details pertaining to Bharat Hard-Ware in current account No. 460205935 from September 2005, the date of disbursement of above said loan till the date of his application i.e, 08-09-08 in pursuance of notice issued by the Respondents to him U/s. 13(2) of the Securitization and Re-construction of Financial Assets & Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002. His application was submitted to the Respondent personally and the Respondent Bank has put the seal & signature on the copy of his application acknowledging the receipts of this application. But the Respondents have not given the copies as prayed for by him which is very necessary to ascertain his correct dues with the Respondent Bank. The in-action of the Respondents in not giving the copies of cheques and remittance counter folios even more than two months constitute deficiency of service by the Respondents. It is further submitted that without settling the dispute regarding his account with the Respondent Bank and without giving the copies of cheques leaves and remittance counter folio as sought for by him for finalising and rectifying the account and balance over, but the Respondents now are bent upon to recover the exaggerated loan amount by attaching his properties offered as collateral security with sole intention to cause loss and hardship to him. The Respondents have even went on to publish notice U/s. 13(2) of SARFRA Act in Hindu Newspaper dt. 24-09-08. This act of Respondents is totally illegal and it shows its illegal intention to harass the complainant even without settling the dispute regarding the account. In-addition to this the Field Officer and the Respondent Bank are frequently visiting his house and terrorizing his family members. There is a bonafide dispute to the tune of Rs. Three Lakh in the above account maintained by the Respondents and the Respondent being the responsible public institution it cannot behave rashly against the complainant. Hence for all these reasons the complainant has sought for direction to the Respondent to settle his cash credit account bearing No. 460205935 and after settling the account by providing necessary documents as sought by the complainant, the Respondent be directed to grant reasonable time to him to settle the dues of the Respondents after correction. 2. Along with complaint, the complainant has filed IA.No-1 seeking Interium Stay Order against the Respondents from attaching & taking possession of his property offered for collateral purposes. After hearing on admission of the complaint and on IA.No-1, this Forum considering prima-facie case admitted the complaint for enquiry and issued Interium Stay Order as sought for in IA.No-1. 3. In response to service of notice on the complaint and on IA.No-1, Respondents 1 & 2 appeared through counsel and initially filed objection to IA.No-1 and subsequently the order on IA-No-1 was kept in-abeyance till the order on complaint and consequently Respondents filed written version. In the written version the Respondents have contended that the allegations in Para-1 of his complaint are in-correct. In-fact the total limit of loan sanctioned to the complainant was to the tune of Rs. 9,50,000/- and it is Open Cash Credit facility and current account. He can draw the amount at any time within the limit of Rs. 9,50,000/- and go on crediting the same according to his convenience. As such it is running current account. Any amount paid or deposited in any manner, he will have a counter folio. In-spite of it the complainant has un-necessarily filed an application under Right to Information Act in-order to create litigation to dupe the public money. Hence there is no question of deficiency of service. The Securitization Act is a Special Act which came into force for the year 2002 and Section 34 of the said Act specifically debars the jurisdiction of Civil Court or any other Authority including this Forum. Hence the application is not maintainable. The Respondent Bank in-fact has supplied the details of account to the complainant on 24-10-07 and on 28-07-08 the copies of said details supplied are produced for perusal. Only to defame the Respondent Bank, the complainant has moved this Forum. There is no any negligence or deficiency of service on the part of Respondent Bank. Only with an intention to defeat the proceedings under Securitization Act before the District Commissioner, Raichur, the complainant has filed the present application by suppressing real facts. Hence for all these reasons the Respondents have sought for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary cost. 4. The Respondents Bank has filed objection to IA.No-1 for rejection of IA. In the enclosed affidavit, the Assistant Manager of the Bank sworn to the fact that the complainant is securitized debtor and has failed to clear the due amount. In pursuance of that Respondent No- 1 & 2 have taken action under the Securitization Act and the said proceedings are posted for taking possession and auction of the property. Under such circumstances granting the stay order against bank is illegal, apart from this when parallel proceedings are pending, this Forum has no power and jurisdiction. There is an appeal provision U/s. 17 of the Securitization Act as such the complaint is not maintainable in this Forum even otherwise as per section 13(4) of Securitization Act there is a bar for taking any legal action. As such the Stay Order is fit to be vacated. 5. During the course of enquiry the complainant has filed his sworn-affidavit by way of examination-in-chief as PW-1. In rebuttal the Manager of Respondent No- 1 Bank has filed his affidavit by way of examination-in-chief as RW-1. On behalf of (9) documents have been got marked as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-9. In-rebuttal (6) documents have been got marked at Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-6 for the Respondents. 6. Heard the arguments of both sides and perused the records. The following points arise for our consideration and determination: 1. Whether the complainant proves deficiency of service by the Respondent Bank in not furnishing the required information as sought for by him, as alleged.? 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for.? 7. Our finding on the above points are as under:- 1. In the affirmative. 2. As per final order for the following REASONS POINT NO.1:- 8 At the very out-set the L.C. for the Respondents argued that the Securitization Act is a Special enactment which came into force in the year 2002 and as per section 34 of the said Act, it specifically bars Civil Court or any Authority like this Forum from granting any relief. Hence this Forum has no jurisdiction and therefore the complaint is not maintainable. In-support of his arguments the LC has relied on two rulings of Honble High Court reported in (1) KCCR 2008(3) Page 1562 Head Note which reads as under: CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908__Section 16__Jurisdiction of Civil Court__Court not having jurisdiction to entertain the case disposes of the case__Whether the party would seek in Appellate Court on same reasoning__No. and (2) KCCR 2008(3) Short Note No. 206 Head Note which reads as under: CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908__Section 9__Jurisdiction of Civil Court__When can be excluded__Held, jurisdiction of Civil Court to deal with civil right can be excluded by legislature, but the statutory provision in this regard must be express and clear. If the proceeding and the order passed therein are completely without jurisdiction, the bar to the maintainability to the suit in the ordinary Civil Court would not apply. As against this the LC for the complainant argued that when banks like the Respondent Bank advance loan or accept deposits etc., they render service to the customers-consumer so banks are amenable to the C.P. Act and thereby this Forum is having jurisdiction and so the complainant is maintainable. In-support of his argument he has relied on decision of Honble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1999 Supreme Court Page No. 787 Head Note D which reads as under: (D) Consumer Protection Act (68 of 1986), S.1__Applicability__Statutory authorities, local bodies etc., are as much amenable as private bodies. A government or semi-government body or a local authority is as much amenable to the Act as any other private body rendering similar service. In absence of any indication, express or implied there is no reason to hold that authorities created by statute are beyond purview of the Act. When banks advance loan or accept deposit or provide facility of locker they undoubtedly render service. A State Bank or nationalized bank renders as much service as private bank. No distinction can be drawn in private and public transport or insurance companies. Even the supply of electricity or gas which throughout the country is being made, mainly by statutory authorities is included in it. The legislative intention is thus clear to protect a consumer against services rendered even by statutory bodies. The test therefore, is not if a person against whom complaint is made is a statutory body but whether the nature of the duty and function performed by its is service or even facility. From the dictum laid-down in the decision of Honble Supreme Court when the banks like the Respondents advance loan or accept deposits or private facility of locker which un-doubtedly render service and no distinction can be drawn in private and public transport or insurance companies. The legislative intention is to protect a consumer against the services rendered even by statutory body. Therefore we are not in agreement with the arguments advanced by the LC for the Respondent and therefore the complainant being the consumer within the meaning of C.P. Act and so this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. 9. Now let us consider Point No-1. There is no dispute that the complainant being the proprietor of M/s. Bharat Hard-Ware situated at Arab Mohalla, Chowk Raichur is having OCC Account bearing No. 460205935 with the Respondent Bank and has obtained a loan for the development of his business by executing all necessary documents and by offering his properties for collateral security. It is the case of the complainant that he has obtained a loan of Rs. 6,50,000/- from the Respondent Bank and not Rs. 9,50,000/- and thereby there is a bonafide dispute to the tune of Rs. Three Lakh in his accounts maintained by Respondent Bank. It is also his case that he raised this dispute with the Manager of the Respondent Bank demanding the details of all the Receipts & Payments made by him by way of cheque leaves, vouchers but the Respondent Bank did not furnish the same. Ultimately he filed an application U/s. 6(1) & 7(1) of Right to Information Act 2005 requesting the Respondents to issue certified copies of cheque leaves and remittance counter folios and details in his current account from September-2005, the date of disbursement of loan till the date of his application dt. 08-09-08 in-pursuance of notice issued by the Respondent U/s. 13(2) of SARFRA Act but in-spite of that the Respondents have not supplied the information as sought for by him which are very necessary to ascertain the correct dues with the Respondent. The Respondents Bank without settling his dispute regarding the accounts and without furnishing copies of the cheque leaves remittance counter-folios have issued notice U/s. 13(2) of Act even published the same in Hindu Paper dt. 24-09-08 and bent upon to sell his properties which are offered for collateral securities of the loan. Hence this act of the Respondent Bank in not supplying the required information of his loan account amounts to deficiency in service. So he has sought for direction to the Respondent to settle his cash credit account by providing necessary documents as sought for by him and to grant reasonable time to the complainant to settle the dues of the Respondent after correction. 10. The Respondents have contended that the total limit of loan has been sanctioned to the tune of Rs. 9,50,000/- and he can draw the amount at any time within the limit of 9,50,000/- and go on crediting the same according to his convenience. As such it is running current account. Apart from this the complainant has executed all necessary documents. Any amount paid or deposited in any manner he will have counter slip, inspite of it a complaint has filed an application under the Right to Information Act in-order to create litigation to dupe the public money. It is for the complainant to produce the counter-folios then only he request for documents of bank. The Respondent Bank has supplied the details of the account to the complainant on 29-10-07 & 28-07-08. In-spite of that the complainant has filed the present complaint. Hence there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Respondent. 11. The complainant has produced in all (9) documents at Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-9. Ex.P-1 is the Copy of Application filed under Right to Information Act along with Xerox copy of Application Form-A of the Right to Information Act with postal order for Rs. 150/-. This application shows the Respondent Bank Seal & Signature in-token of receipt of said application by the Respondent Bank. Ex.P-2 is the notice issued by the Respondent dt. 04-09-08 U/s. 13(2) of the Securitization and Re-construction of Financial Assistance & Enforcement Security Interest Act 2002. Ex.P-3 is the Letter issued by the Respondent to the complainant dt. 26-09-08 along with Statement of Accounts. Ex.P-4 is the Newspaper Cutting dt. 24-09-08 with regard to demand notice issued under Securitization Act. Ex.P-5 is the Office Copy of Objection sent to the Respondent by the complainant dt. 09-09-08 with postal acknowledgement. Ex.P-6 is Office Copy of the complainant letter dt. 06-10-07 to the Respondent seeking details of his account with Respondent. Ex.P-7 is the Office Copy of the complainants letter dt. 26-11-07 issued to the Respondent seeking details of Pass Book and Statement of Account from 01-02-05 to 15-02-06. Ex.P-8 is Raichur Vani Daily Kannada Newspaper dt. 29-11-08 notifying the sale of properties offered as collateral security. Ex.P-9 Notice issued by the Respondents to the complainant dt. 26-11-08 which was received to him on 02-12-08. 12. The Respondents have also produced (6) documents at Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-6. Ex.R-1 is the Xerox copy of letter of the complainant to the Respondent for issuing the details of cheque leaves and withdrawal slip etc., Ex.R-2 is the letter of the Respondent dt. 13-10-08 to the complainant in-reply to his application dt. 08-09-08. Ex.R-3 is the Copy of Statement of Account of the complainant bearing No. 460205935 with Respondent Bank. Ex.R-4 is the Additional Reply Notice dt. 15-09-08 given by the Advocate for the complainant to the Respondent. Ex.R-5 is the Notice dt. 25-09-08 issued by the Respondent in reply to Notice dt. 15-09-08 (Ex.R-4). Ex.R-6 is the Copy of Statement of Accounts from 01-08-07 to 30-08-07. 13. Ex.R-3 the Statement of Accounts dt. 18-12-08 produced by the Respondents goes to show the Account pertains from 01-01-05 to 07-10-08. It further shows that the complainant was transacting his OCC A/c. by withdrawing the loan amount and by depositing his amount. A close perusal of this account it shows excess deposits are made for some time and excess withdrawals are made for some time as against the deposits resulting outstanding dues of Rs. 9,04,580.58 ps as on 29-01-07 and Rs. 10,36,626.58 ps as on 31-07-08 and Rs. 10,68,188/- as on 07-10-08. Ex.P-2 the Notice issued U/s. 13(2) of Securitization Act by the Respondent Bank shows the outstanding dues of Rs. 10,36,626.58 ps. as 31-07-08. From the Extract of Account at Ex.R-3 we do not find any deposits/payments made by the complainant against the outstanding dues at Rs. 9,04,580.58 ps as on 29-10-07. Of-course the complainant was allowed to withdraw the loan amount upto 9,50,000/- as contended by the Respondents, but it appears that the Respondent has let-loosed the complainant even to withdraw the loan amount beyond stipulated limit of Rs. 9,50,000/- as seen from Extract of Account. 14. The L.C. for the complainant argued that for the first time on 06-10-07 vide Ex.P-6 & on 26-11-07 vide Ex.P-7 the complainant had filed application for furnishing certified copies of (9) withdrawal slips pertaining to the dates from 18-03-06 to 03-05-06 and Pass book upto date entry, but the same was not furnished by the Respondent Bank. As there was a dispute of difference of Rs. Three Lakhs, he had sought for supply of certified copy of (9) withdrawal slips from 18-03-06 to 03-05-06, but the Respondent Bank instead of issuing the copies of withdrawals, had issued Demand Notice vide Ex.P-2 U/s. 13(2) of Securitization Act, for payment of Rs. 10,36,626.58 ps. within two months from the date of notice and consequence of failure to comply with the same. Even after the receipt of this notice at Ex.P-2, the complainant immediately sought for certified copies of cheque leaves, Remittance and counter folios and details of Account from September-2005 to September 2008 under Right to Information Act as per Ex.P-1 and he also filed Objections to the said Notice U/s. 13(2) of the Act in detail as per Ex.P-5 dt. 09-09-08. In this Objection at Ex.P-5 he had also requested for supplying the cheque leaves and remittance vouchers for verification and has stated that after ascertaining his correct liability he is ready to clear of all the dues. But the Respondent Bank without heeding to his request had issued Notice of Intended Sale of the Properties offered as security as per Ex.P-9 and so this act of the Respondent Bank amounts to deficiency in service. The L.C. repeatedly submitted that the complainant is ready to pay the dues provided the Respondent Bank furnishes the required information sought for verification and correctness of the outstanding dues. 15. As against this L.C. for Respondents argued that the Respondent Bank has furnished extract of Statement of Accounts as per request of the complainant and this fact has been admitted at Para-5 of the Additional Objections (to the Notice U/s. 13(2) of Securitization Act) filed through his counsel on 15-09-08 vide Ex.R-4. So this impliedly go to show that the complainant was furnished with Statement of Accounts as sought for by him under Right to Information Act vide Ex.P-6 & Ex.P-7. The L.C. further argued that since the complainant has sought for certified copies of cheques and challans deposited by him from September 2005 to September 2008 which was voluminous and not permissible as per section 7 (9) of Right to Information Act, so the Respondent had expressed their in-ability to furnish the same as per their reply letter dt. 13-10-08 produced at Ex.R-2. 16. We find considerable force in the argument of the L.C. for the complainant. Admittedly, through Ex.P-6 the complainant has filed an application dt. 06-10-07 for furnishing certified copies of (9) withdrawals between 18-03-06 to 03-05-06 as detailed therein and through Ex.P-7 he had filed another application dt. 26-11-07 requesting the Respondent Bank for issuing Pass Book Entry from 23-11-05 upto date. But instead of furnishing the required information as sought for vide Ex.P-6 & Ex.P-7, the Respondent Bank has issued Notice U/s. 13(2) of Securitization Act dt. 04-09-08 vide Ex.P-2. In-pursuance of this notice, the complainant even filed an application for furnishing certified copies of cheque leaves and remittance, counter folios and details pertaining to his account from September 2005 to upto date as per Ex.P-1 and also filed his Objection to the said Notice as per Ex.P-5. In the said Objection at Ex.P-5, he has also stated the dispute of difference of Rs. Three Lakh in the liability and requested for settling his account with corresponding details of cheque leaves, remittance voucher with counter folio and has stated his readiness to clear all the dues after ascertaining his correct liability. This Objection Petition Ex.P-5 has been received by the Respondent Bank vide Postal Acknowledgement at Ex.P-5(1). The Respondent Bank has not produced any piece of evidence as to whether they had verified the loan accounts of the complainant as stated in his Objection Petition at Ex.P-5. So we do not know whether the Respondent Bank did verify the accounts of the complainant with regard to the difference of Rs. Three Lakh in the account as detailed in his Objection Petition at Ex.P-5 filed in pursuance of the Notice U/s. 13(2) of Securitization Act issued by the Respondent Bank. Even the Respondent Bank has not produced any evidence to show that they had verified the accounts and found it correct and that they have replied the same to the complainant. In the absence of the same it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that the request of the complainant made in his Objection Petition vide Ex.P-5 (regarding difference of Rs. Three Lakh in the outstanding liability) has been attended to by the Respondent Bank. On the contrary we find that the Respondent Bank has issued Notice of Intended Sale under 6(2) & 8(6) of Securitization Act for sale of the property offered as security on 26-11-08 vide Ex.P-9 and also got published the said Notice in Raichur Vani Kannada Daily Paper dt. 29-11-08 vide Ex.P-8. 17. As seen above the Statement of Accounts produced by the Respondent Bank at Ex.R-3 goes to show that the complainant has transacted OCC facility with the Respondent Bank by withdrawals of loan amount and also by making deposits. This statement shows that for some time the complainant has deposited excess amount against the loan withdrawal and for some time he has made excess withdrawals against the deposit. The last deposit made by him is at Rs. 9,000/- as on 29-10-07 by leaving outstanding dues of Rs. 9,04,580.58 ps. and thereafter it appears he has not made any deposits or withdrawals. This Statement of Accounts further shows that by adding interest and penal interest etc., the outstanding dues is shown at Rs. 10,36,626/- as on 31-07-08. If the last transaction made by the complainant on 29-10-07 is taken into account in the light of his application Ex.P-6 & Ex.P-7 through which the complainant sought for certified copies of (9) withdrawal slips vide Ex.P-6 dt. 06-10-07 and for issue of Pass Book with Entry vide Ex.P-7 dt. 26-11-07, then it shows that the dispute regarding correctness of the Account arose between the parties from this last transaction of the account as on 29-10-07. The Respondent Bank, it appears have not furnished required information as sought by the complainant and they have issued Notice U/s. 13(2) of the Act vide Ex.P-2 showing outstanding dues of Rs. Ten Lakh an odd and immediately the complainant sought for the certified copies of cheque leaves and remittance vouchers for the period from September-2005 to September-2008 under Right to Information Act vide Ex.P-1 and also filed his Objection Petition to the said Notice as per Ex.P-5 requesting the Respondent Bank for verifying the Accounts as there is difference of Rs. Three Lakh in his liability. It appears that the Respondent Bank without heeding to the request for verifying the accounts or even by replying to his request, have got issued the Intended Sale Notice vide Ex.P-9. If all these factors are taken into account it leads to deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent Bank in not heeding to the request made by the complainant vide Ex.P-6, Ex.P-7 & Ex.P-1 & Ex.P-5. If further shows that the Respondent Bank without heeding to the request of the complainant for verifying the Accounts and for supplying the required information which they are expected to do so. It natural shows that the Respondents have made use of the weapon of sale notice of properties of complainant and so this attitude of Respondent Bank clearly amounts to deficiency of service. Under these circumstances we find substance to hold that the complainant has proved deficiency of service by the Respondent Bank. Hence Point No-1 is answered in the affirmative. POINT NO.2:- 18. The complainant has sought for direction to the Respondent to settle his Cash Credit Account by making corrections and for providing necessary documents as sought for by him, and the Respondent be further directed to grant reasonable time to settle the dues of the Respondent Bank. 19. In-view of our discussion and finding on Point No-1, holding deficiency in service by the Respondent Bank in not furnishing the required information as sought for by the complainant, consequently we find substance in the reliefs sought for by the complainant for issuing directions to the Respondents to settle his account with necessary corrections if any and to furnish necessary information sought for by him and to provide reasonable time for payment of the outstanding dues. In case of failure in payment of dues by the complainant, then the Respondent Bank is at liberty to take appropriate action for recovery of the dues. In the result we pass the following order: ORDER The complaint of the complainant is allowed in part. The Respondents are directed to settle the outstanding dues with necessary corrections if any, and to furnish required information as per his application dt. 08-09-08 pertaining to his OCC Account under intimation to complainant and after giving reasonable time to the complainant for payment of outstanding dues, if he fails to do so, then the Respondents are at liberty to proceed with recovery proceedings. The Complainant is also directed to approach the Respondent Bank at the time of verification of the accounts and to comply the direction of Respondents in payment of outstanding dues after verification. Consequently I.A. No-1 is disposed of accordingly. There is no order as to cost. The Respondent shall comply this order within (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Office to furnish certified copy of this order to both the parties forth-with free of cost. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 21-02-09) Sd/- Sri. N.H. Savalagi, President, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Sri. Gururaj, Member, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Member. District Forum-Raichur.