ANIL PAUL Vs. SOUTH INDIA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Dated this the 20th day of October, 2021 The challenge in the civil revision petition is against the order of the Munsiff's Court, Kolencherry finding the suit, O.S.No.12 of 2017, filed by the South Indian Bank (hereinafter "the Bank") against the revision petitioners, to be maintainable. The original petition is filed by the Bank challenging Ext.P6 order of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ernakulam in E.A.No.2 of 2019 in C.C No.505 of 2015 filed by Sri.Anil Paul (hereinafter 'the petitioner'). The essential facts, leading to the impugned orders, are as under;

(2.) During pendency of the complaint before the CDRF, the Bank filed O.S.No.12 of 2017 before the Munsiff's Court, Kolencherry seeking to recover an amount of Rs.5,71,783.67 from the petitioner and his wife. In the wake of the CDRF's order, the bank amended the plaint by reducing the amount sought to be recovered to Rs.1,61,383.00. The petitioner entered appearance and contended that the suit is barred by res judicata since the issue had already been decided by the CDRF. The objection was repelled by the learned Munsiff finding that CDRF to be incompetent to settle the account and to direct calculation of interest at the rate fixed by the Forum. The learned Munsiff held that the suit is not barred by res judicata, since the CDRF is not competent to decide the issue involved in the suit.

(3.) On his part, the petitioner filed execution petition before the CDRF stating that in compliance of the Forum's order, he had calculated the balance amount due, following the method available on the Bank's website. The amount arrived at was Rs.1,03,483.00 and after deducting the cost and compensation amounting to Rs.15,000.00, the balance amount of Rs.85,500.00 had been remitted to his loan account on 25/9/2018. It was stated that, despite remittance of the amount, officials of the Bank refused to return the security documents. The petitioner therefore sought issuance of warrant of arrest against the respondent invoking power under Sec. 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. On being convinced that the judgment debtor had failed to comply with its direction, the CDRF addressed the District Collector to initiate proceedings against the Manager of the Bank for realisation of the amount of Rs.15,000.00 ordered towards compensation and cost. The Bank is aggrieved by the said order.