GANESH MAHAL vs MANAGER, KARNATAKA BANK LTD.

IN this complaint, under Section 17 r/w Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, M/s. Ganesh Mahal, Hotel, has sought compensation in a sum of Rs. 3,22,363/- towards excess amount of interest, a sum of Rs.15 lakhs as compensation and interest thereon from the Opposite Party-Karnataka Bank Ltd., Mangalore.

THE Complainant had availed a term loan amounting to Rs. 18 lakhs during the year 1978 from the Opposite Party which was later on rephased on 26-11-1990. A short term loan of Rs. 3 lakhs was advanced at the interest rate of 9% p.a. and long term loan of Rs. 20 lakhs was advanced at the rate of interest at 8% p.a. THE Complainant had mortgaged certain properties to the Opposite Party. It is the grievance of the Complainant that the Opposite Party charged increased rate of interest without any notice and consent of the Complainant. Even the method of calculating the interest was void and to the disadvantage of the Complainant. The Complainant was directed to clear the dues and the Opposite Party even threatened to enforcement of securities, so the Complainant made sale of certain property as distress sale and in which he suffered heavy loss. The Opposite Party furnished the account extract pertaining to the aforesaid two loan accounts and on which the Complainant verified and came to know that an excess interest of a sum of Rs. 3,22,363/- was collected by the Opposite Party. The Complainant was forced to clear the loan amount by making sale of his properties, hurriedly under which he sustained heavy loss. The Complainant on the basis of these averments, sought the repay ment of the excess interest amount so collected from the Complainant and also a sum of Rs. 15 lakhs as compensation.

The Opposite Party filed its version and averred that the interest was charged on the loan amount as per the rules and regulations and no excess interest was charged and collected from the Complainant. The Opposite Party further averred that there was no question of distress sale of the property by the Complainant and it denied that the Complainant had suffered any loss by such a sale.

THE Opposite Party nextly averred that as the complaint involved complicated question of fact requiring detailed examination and cross-examination of several witnesses, scrutiny of books of account and the settlement of accounts, so the appropriate remedy for the Complainant was to approach the Civil Court for the purpose. We heard the learned Counsel for the parties regarding maintainability of the complaint.

THE Complainant, as per his own averments in the complaint, had availed loans - short term and long term loan, and he was operating them since 1978. THE Complainant sold certain properties in the month of June, 1993 and cleared both the loan accounts with the Opposite Party. THErefore, it is clear that the Complainant wants this Commission to examine, scrutinise the accounts from 1978 till 1993 regarding his two loan accounts to find out whether an excess interest has been charged and collected by the Opposite Party in a sum of Rs. 3,22,363/-. This would necessarily require recording of voluminous evidence of numerous transactions, so having regard to this fact, there cannot be a satisfactory adjudication of issues in time bound proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The National Commission, while considering such an aspect of the matter, in Omega Packaging Pvt. Ltd. v. Central Bank of India and Others, reported in 1995 (1) C.P.R. page 247, observed, thus: "Where complaint alleging excess interest charged by bank on transactions involved a number of entries requiring evidence of numerous transactions, there cannot be a satisfactory adjudication of issues in time bound proceedings under Consumer Protection Act and complainant is at liberty to approach Civil Court."

So in our opinion, the proper remedy for the complainant is to approach the Civil Court and not the Consumer Forum. ORDER In the result, therefore, this complaint fails and it is dismissed without prejudice to the right of the Complainant to seek redress for the allegations of excess interest charged by the Opposite Party-Bank and the loss sustained by him under a distress sale in a suit, if he so desires. The parties are directed to pay and bear their own costs in this proceeding. Complaint dismissed.