SAROJ SANCHETI Vs. BRANCH MANAGER, BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this complaint, the complainant has prayed for compensation in the sum of Rs. 55,00,000/ - with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of filing of Application No. 95 of 96 till it is paid and cost of the complaint on following brief allegations of facts.

(2.) THE complainant happened to be one of the Directors of M/s. Sancheti Yarn Limited. The said Company availed of credit facilities from opponent Bank. The complainant executed security documents on 4.11.1991 and offered personal guarantee for repayment of the credit facility. She, however, resigned from the post of Director on 20.1.1992 and informed the opponent Bank about her registration from the company. She also withdrew her personal guarantee given as aforesaid. The opponent Bank discharged her from liability as guarantor vide communication dated 12.1.1995. Yet, the opponent Bank filed Original Application No. 95 of 96 impleading the complainant as opposite party in that application in her capacity as a guarantor for the aforesaid company. The learned Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ahmedabad passed order dated 7.4.2003 dismissing the application in so far as the complainant was concerned. In spite of the order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, recovery proceedings came to be initiated against the complainant who objected to such an action on the part of the opponent Bank. Under such circumstances, the complainant has alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opponent Bank and has filed this complaint for obtaining relief of compensation as aforesaid.

(3.) WE have heard the learned Advocate appearing for the complainant. On the face of the averments made in the complaint, it would appear that the complainant withdrew herself from the capacity as a guarantor for the company in which she happened to be a director. The opponent Bank also accepted the said withdrawal and, therefore, relationship between the opponent Bank being the creditor and complainant being the guarantor came to an end long back. Even the learned Debt Recovery Tribunal passed the order accepting the complainant s stand that she could not be said to be a guarantor in respect of the transaction for which reliefs were claimed. Thus, on the face of the facts set out by the complainant in this complaint, there was no relationship of guarantor and creditor between the complainant and the opponent Bank. If that is so, the very basis for alleging that the complainant is a consumer of opponent Bank does not survive. On the face of the averments made in the complaint, the complainant cannot be said to be a consumer in the eye of law. Besides, the complainant can approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal in respect of whose proceedings the dispute is presented in this complaint. If this complaint is entertained, that would amount to intercepting the proceedings before a lawful authority established under the Recovery of Dues by the Banks and Financial Institutions Act. Further, the learned Advocate for the complainant submits that after filing of the complaint, the recovery proceedings have been dropped. In view of what is stated above, this complaint cannot be entertained and the same is rejected at the stage of admission.