R Sethuraman vs MANAGER INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK

IS an appeal filed by the complainant against the Order dated 7th July, 1993 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tamil Nadu (for short the State Commission). The complaint had been filed against the present respondents, the Manager, the Indian Overseas Bank, College Campus, and the Indian Overseas Bank, Central Office, Annasalai, Madras. Vide the impugned order the State Commission dismissed the complaint. In the complaint the complainants claimed for the recovery of Rs. 37,500 and his grievance was that all the debts due to the opposite parties were wiped out by payment of Rs. 9 lakhs. The State Commission observed that all these matters can be settled after taking into account and this relief could be granted only by way of Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. The complainant has challenged the findings of the State Commission before this Commission by way of this appeal.

THE averments of the complainants are that he is a manufacturer of medicine. He was having various loan facilities with the opposite party such an Open Cash Credit, Term Loans and Funds Loans and Supply Bills. The complainant had deposited several documents of title in respect of his properties. The complainants unit, M/s. Win Pharma became sick w.e.f. 1st April, 1986. The opposite parties promised to render financial assistance for rehabilitation but failed to do so. The complainant sold one acre of land to Life Insurance Corporation of India with the permission of the opposite party for Rs. 9 lakhs. The Corporation paid that amount directly to the 1st opposite party. The complainants case is that in view of the said payment all his debts due to the opposite parties were discharged because as per the statement of account furnished by the 1st opposite party the total amount due to it comes to Rs. 8,70,854.05. However, according to the Chartered Accountant of the complainant the amount due comes to Rs. 8,82,410.27. Further, the complainant is labile to pay simple interest at the rate of 14% per annum from 1st April, 1986. Further grievance of the complainant is that despite the fact that the sale proceeds of the land completely wiped out all the debts due to the 1st opposite party it refused to return the documents. The 1st opposite party also stopped payments from March, 1992. The complainant asked the 1st opposite party to issue a no objection certificate as he wanted to avail financial assistance from other Banks. The 1st opposite party issued a certificate containing false recitals and hence other Banks did not advance him loans. Thus the complainants claim for the refund of Rs. 37,500/ - which is said to have been charged by the opposite party as excess interest. The complainant also claimed Rs. 1,25,000/ - towards loss of profits suffered by him on account of non -return of the documents. Because of the defective certificate issued by the 1st opposite party he could not get loans from other banks and as the documents of title were not returned to him, he could not sell his property and therefore, he had borrowed money from other sources at an exorbitant rate of interest at 36% per annum. The complainants claim was resisted by the opposite parties. According to them the amount outstanding and due from the complainant as on 3rd February, 1992 was Rs. 14,45,738.38. The 1st opposite party gave permission to the complainant to sell one of the items to Life Insurance Corporation of India and received Rs. 9 lakhs as the sale proceeds. There was still a balance of Rs. 4,63,641/ - in respect of the open cash credit account, Rs. 27,706/ - in respect of the term loan 1 /84, and Rs. 60,391 / -in respect of the term loan 4/85 in all aggregating to a sum of Rs. 5,45,738/ - as on 14th February, 1992. There was no question of returning documents when the amount was still due from the complainant. The no objection certificate issued by it to the complainant did not contain any false titles as the complainant was enjoying various credit facilities and these facilities were not stopped. Thus, according to the opposite parties there was no deficiency of service and negligence on their part.

WE have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. We do not find any force in the present appeal. Our reasons are as follows :

THE main allegation of the complainant is that after the payment of Rs. 9 lakhs by Corporation which was the sale proceeds of one of the properties the whole dues of the opposite parties were wiped out. Annexure D (at pages 34 -35 of the paper book) is a letter dated 16th March, 1992 sent by the complainant to opposite party No. 1. In that letter there is no mention that the whole debt was wiped out. On the other hand in it there is a reference of an earlier letter dated 1st February, 1992 by which the complainant had offered to deposit of five lakhs rupees with the opposite party. Even in that letter dated 16th March, 1992 that offer was reiterated. The complainants case is that it is a sick unit and according to the RBI guidelines it is entitled to concessions in interest from 1st April, 1986 and interest should be calculated at the concessional rate. Guidelines have been produced. Clause 6 of that guidelines reads as follows : ''Reliefs and concessions for rehabilitation of potentially viable units : It is emphasised that only those units which are considered to be potentially viable should be taken up for rehabilitation. Norms for grant of reliefs and concessions by Banks/Financial Institutions to potentially viable sick SSI units for rehabilitation are furnished in Annexure II. We may add that the reliefs/concessions to the extent indicated in the Annexure II are not intended to be given as a matter of course in all cases of rehabilitation of sick SSI units. It is for the Banks/Financial Institutions to decide on the nature and extent of concessions necessary/warranted within these parameters, depending upon the merits of each case.''

IN view of the above that guideline decision is left to the Banks/Financial Institutions to decide the nature and extent of concessions. The State Commission rightly remarked that only a Civil Court can go into the question if the complainants are entitled for any concession or the excess interest has been charged.

THE No Objection Certificate issued by the opposite party No. 1 is at page 36, Annexure E of the paper -book, it reads as follows : ''The captioned party (A/c : WIN PHARMA) is enjoying various credit facilities like supply bills, open cash credit and term loans with us. Now the party wants to avail credit facilities from your Bank. Under these circumstances, we have no objection to avail loan facilities by the captioned party from you.'' The State Commission has rightly remarked that the recital in the certificate that the complainant was enjoying various facilities was true as the opposite party never stopped transactions with the complainant and no such intimation was given to the complainant either orally or in writing. The State Commission has further remarked that the refusal of the State Bank of India to finance loans to the complainant might be due to several reasons and could not be said that the said Bank refused the loan only because of the certificate issued by the 1st opposite party.

BEFORE parting with this case, we may mention here that the 1st opposite party has filed a civil suit for the recovery of Rs. 7,58,142/ -. A copy of the plaint has been filed. That suit is contested by the present appellant in which he has made a counter claim for Rs. 50,000/ -.

THE question whether all the debts due to the first opposite party are wiped out and whether the opposite party has claimed excess interest of Rs. 37,500/ - as claimed by the complainant are matters which should be decided only by taking account. The Forum constituted under the Consumer Protection Act is not the proper Forum for taking accounts and deciding the amount due to any of the parties that is to be done only by the regular Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. In view of the above discussions we dismiss the present complaint. We make no order as to costs. Complaint dismissed. __