NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

NEW DELHI

 

ORIGINAL PETITION  NO. 116   OF  2001

 

Traxpo Trading Ltd.                                                                     ..        Complainant

            

Vs.

 

The Federal Bank Ltd.                                                                   ..        Opposite Party

 

BEFORE:

 

            HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE D.P. WADHWA,

                                                            PRESIDENT

            HON’BLE JUSTICE J.K. MEHRA, MEMBER

MRS. RAJYALAKSHMI RAO, MEMBER.   

MR. B.K. TAIMNI, MEMBER

 

Section -18 :    Recovery of Debts  Due to Banks & Financial Institutions Act, 1993  bar of jurisdiction of  Consumer Forum - complaint raising complex questions of facts and law.

 

[Note:  The order of the National Commission upheld by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal  1361 of  2002  by the following order dated 18.2.2002:

 

            “Delay condoned.

 

Regardless of the view taken in regard to Section 18 of the Recovery of Debts  Due to companies & Financial Institutions Act, 1993, we are of the opinion that this was not an appropriate matter to file before the Consumer Forum, having regard to the complexity of the issues involved.   The appropriate  course, if at all, would have been a civil suit.

            The civil appeal is dismissed.”]

 

 

 

For the complainant                  :   Mr. M.N. Krishnamani, Sr. Advocate and

                                                     Mr. K.R. Nambiar, Advocate with him.

 

For the opposite party              :    Mr. V.P. Diwan, Advocate.

 

 

 

 

 

ORDER

 

Dated the  15th  October,  2001

PER JUSTICE D.P. WADHWA (PRESIDENT)

 

                        Alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party-bank this complaint has been filed seeking various reliefs and directions which are as under:

“1.  Directing the opposite party to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 49,59,415.59 as stated in paragraph 1(1)(i) above.

2.     Directing the opposite party to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.13,64, 61,508.46 towards loss and damages suffered by the complainant as stated in paragraph 1(1)(iv)  above.

3.     In the alternative, to make an enquiry into the loss and damages suffered by the complainant and directing the opposite party to pay to the complainant the said assessed sum towards loss and damages suffered by the complainant.

4.     Directing the opposite party to withdraw their purported letters of threat dated  3rd April, 2000  issued  to overseas sellers and/or their agents as stated in paragraph 1(h) (i) hereinabove.

5.     Directing the opposite party to withdraw their purported letters of threat written and issued to several overseas sellers and or their agents as stated in paragraph 1(h)(viii) hereinabove.

6.     Directing the opposite party to withdraw  their purported letters written to the several customers of the complainant including the two letters  both dated May 28,  1999 addressed to  Sudarshan Drugs &  Intermediates Ltd. wrongly printed as Srikrishan  Drugs & Intermediaries Ltd. and M/s. Padmavati Chemical Company as stated in paragraph 1(i) (i) hereinbefore.

7.     Directing  the opposite party to issue particular statements/ insertions/advertisements in four newspapers to be circulated in Calcutta, Chennai, Mumbai and Delhi to the effect that the opposite party wrongfully and illegally issued the letters as stated in paragraphs 1(h)(i) and 1(i) (i) above.

8.     Directing   the opposite party to return all the original documents lying with the opposite party against the Letters of Credit as stated in paragraph 1(g)  above.

9.     Directing  that there is no dues payable by the complainant to the opposite party either in the FIBP account maintained with the opposite party or in any account or accounts whatsoever.

10.  Directing that the interest purportedly claimed in the FIBP account by the opposite party or the monies shown as payable by the complainant to the opposite party in the said FIBP account are all wrongful and illegal and accordingly to  quash the said claims of the opposite party.

11. Directing that no interest can be charged  by the opposite party in respect of the FIBP account  maintained with the opposite party;

12. Injunction restraining the opposite party from charging any further interest in the FIBP account and from debiting the said account by any further amount.

13. Injunction be issued restraining the opposite party from closing the said three Fixed Deposit accounts Nos. FFD-1/98,FFD-2/98 and FFD-3/98 and/or realising the monies lying to the credit of the said three Fixed Deposit accounts and allow the said accounts to be continued with the opposite party at the sole discretion and desire of the complainant.

14. Ad-interim orders in terms of prayers above.

15. Receiver

16. Injunction

17. Attachment

18. Costs; and

19. Further or other reliefs”.

                        On filing of this complaint  on 17.4.2001 we issued notice to the bank for  this day i.e.  15.10.2001.  Written version of the bank has been filed.   Admittedly the bank filed a suit for recovery of over Rs.82.00 lakhs  from the complainant which suit was filed on 31.8.2001 and is pending before the  Debt Recovery Tribunal under the  Recovery of Debts Due to Banks & Financial Institutions Act, 1993( for short ‘Act’).   Mr. Krishnamani, learned Senior Advocate for the complainant submitted that so far complainant has not filed written statement in the suit.   Under section 18 of the  Act  jurisdiction of this Commission is barred where the  bank has filed suit.  Defendant in that suit can claim set off  or even counter claim  against the bank under section 19 of the Act.   Complainant would have ample opportunity to raise all the issues presented in the present complaint.  That apart when we examined the complaint it raises  complex questions both of facts and law which  is not possible to decide  in our summary jurisdiction.  Then we also feel that this complaint has been filed more as a counter blast  to the   proposed action of the bank.    No   doubt   this   complaint  has  been   filed   four   months  earlier   of  filing   of   the   suit   by   the   bank   before   the   Debt   Recovery   Tribunal.            But

from that we cannot lose sight of the fact that the bank would have threatened the complainant for filing a suit and when such suit was  imminent, complainant   chose to file this complaint.   We therefore, decline to entertain this complaint and return the same to the complainant to seek remedy, if any, elsewhere.  This complainant is disposed of accordingly.   Opposite party-bank shall be entitled to costs of these proceedings which we quantify at Rs.5,000/-.

…………………………….J

                                                                                                (D.P. WADHWA)

                                                                                                   PRESIDENT

 

                                                                                                ……………………………J  

(J.K. MEHRA)             MEMBER

                                                                                                ……………………………….

                                                                                                (RAJYALAKSHMI RAO)

                                                                                                            MEMBER

 

                                                                                                 

.………..……………………..

                                                                                                ( B.K. TAIMNI)

                                                                                                      MEMBER