CITI COMMUNICATIONS Vs. BANK OF RAJASTHAN LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision petition, there is challenge to order dated 23.2.2011 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commisison, Circuit Bench Jaipur, Rajasthan (For Short ' State Commission') in (Appeal No.1625 of 2007).

(2.) Brief facts are that Arvind Kumar Bhatnagar- Petitioner no.2/Complainant No.2 had obtained loan for self-employment to procure one EPABX Unit from the Respondent-Bank in which Petitioner No.3-S.C. Verma/Complainant No.3 was a Guarantor. It is alleged that Bank did not credit the amount in their loan A/c which was paid to the Bank by the Principal Debtor. Respondent mortgaged the Title Deed valued at Rs.4,00,000/-(Rupees Four lacs only) for the loan. Petitioner No.2/Complainant No.2 instructed the Respondent-Bank to sell the EPABX Unit to repay the loan amount completely. Thus, Petitioner no.2 had to incur huge expenditure for the upkeeping & maintenance of EPABX unit. It is further stated that Respondent-Bank had recovered Rs.3,38,055/- from Petitioner No.3 on 14.12.2004 when no amount payable was ever outstanding against the loan dues. The loan dues were finally paid as per agreement by surrendering the loan security of Rs.2,75,000/- to the Respondent-Bank on 9.10.2000. Even then the Respondent-Bank recovered Rs.3,38,055/- from Petitioner no.3 by coersion and force on 14.12.2004. However, Respondent Bank did not return the Title Deed. Therefore, interest @ 14% on Rs.3,38,055/- may be given being the loss sustained for not selling the EPABX Unit, incurring expenditure for its maintenance & upkeeping, Godown rent etc. may be allowed to be given by the Respondent Bank and Rs.10,000/- may also be ordered to be given for litigation expenses plus loss to the petitioner.

(3.) Respondents in their written statement asserted that petitioners are not consumers. Therefore, they are not entitled to file complaint in the consumer court. It is further stated that respondent had filed recovery suit in the Court of Additional District Judge. This fact has been suppressed by the petitioners. When the recovery suit was pending in Civil Court, the respondent had filed suit before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (D.R.T.) under the Securitization & Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. It is stated that D.R.T. had ordered on 17.11.2004 to take possession of the Guarantor's property. The petitioner no.3 as a compromise in writing paid the amount of Rs.3,38,000/- on 14.12.2004 to Respondent Bank. Thereafter, respondent had withdrawn the Recovery Suit. Thus, petitioners have suppressed all such facts.