Back
TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MADRAS
Honble Thiru Justice S.A. Kader,
President; Thiru R.N. Manickam & Dr. Tmt. Ramani Mathuranayagam, Members
R. SETHURAMAN—Complainant
versus
THE MANAGER, INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK & ANOTHER—Opp. Parties
O. P. No. 421 of 1992—Decided on 7.7.1993
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Complainant :Mr. M. Agni, Advocate.
For the Opp. Parties:Mr. R. Narayanan, Advocate.
The Consumer Forum is not the proper forum for taking accounts and deciding the account due to any of the parties. That is to be done only by the regular Civil Court of competent jurisdiction.
Headnote:
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT - SECTION 17 AND 12 - INTERPRETATION - EXCESS INTEREST CLAIM - LOSS OF PROFIT CLAIM - NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE - INTERPRETATION - DEFICIENCY OF SERVICE - NEGLIGENCE - DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT: 1. The Consumer Forum is not the proper forum for taking accounts and deciding the account due to any of the parties. That is to be done only by the regular Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. 2. The claim that the complainant suffered loss of profit on account of the denial of return the documents is unsustainable. 3. The certificate issued by the first opposite party cannot therefore be said to be erroneous. The refusal of the State Bank of India to finance loans to the complainant may be due to several reasons and it cannot be said that the State Bank of India refused the loan only because of Exh. A5 certificate issued by the first opposite party.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant, a manufacturer of Medicines, had various loan facilities with the first opposite party, including open cash credit, Term Loans, and Funded Loans. The complainant deposited several documents of title in respect of his properties. The complainant's unit became sick with effect from 1.4.1986. The opposite party promised to render financial assistance for rehabilitation, but failed to do so. The complainant sold 1 acre of land to the L.I.C. of India for Rs. 9,00,000/- and the amount was paid by the L.I.C. directly to the opposite party No. 1 in discharging all the debts due from the complainant. The complainant claimed that the sale proceeds of the land sold by him to the L.I.C. of India completely wiped out all the debts and no further amount was due to the first opposite party. However, the first opposite party refused to return the documents and stopped paying from March 1992. The complainant approached other banks for financial assistance and was asked to obtain a no objection certificate from the first opposite party. The first opposite party issued a certificate containing false recitals, and hence other banks did not offer a loan to him. The complainant filed a complaint claiming compensation for excess interest paid and loss of profits suffered due to the non-return of documents.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complainant was not entitled to a refund of Rs. 37,500/- as excess interest collected from him since the matter of taking accounts and deciding the account due to any of the parties is to be done only by the regular Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. The court also found that the claim for loss of profit on account of the denial of return of documents was unsustainable. The court further found that the no objection certificate issued by the first opposite party was not erroneous and that the refusal of the State Bank of India to finance loans to the complainant may be due to several reasons and it cannot be said that the State Bank of India refused the loan only because of the certificate issued by the first opposite party.
Issues: 1. Whether the complainant is entitled to a refund of Rs. 37,500/- as excess interest collected from him? 2. Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation for loss of profit suffered on account of the denial of return of documents? 3. Whether the no objection certificate issued by the first opposite party was erroneous?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Consumer Forum is not the proper forum for taking accounts and deciding the account due to any of the parties. That is to be done only by the regular Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. 2. The claim that the complainant suffered loss of profit on account of the denial of return the documents is unsustainable. 3. The certificate issued by the first opposite party cannot therefore be said to be erroneous. The refusal of the State Bank of India to finance loans to the complainant may be due to several reasons and it cannot be said that the State Bank of India refused the loan only because of Exh. A5 certificate issued by the first opposite party.
Final Decision: The complaint was dismissed without costs.
Mr. Justice S.A. Kader, President— This is a complaint under Section 17 read with Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.
2. The complainant who is a manufacturer of Medicines. The complainant was having various loan facilities with the first opposite party such as open cash credit; Term Loans and Funded Loans and supply bills. The complainant had deposited several documents of title in respect of his properties. The complainant's unit became sick with effect from 1.4.1986. The opposite party promised to render financial assistance for rehabilitation, but failed to do so. The complainant sold 1 acre of land to the L.I.C. of India for Rs. 9,00,000/- and amount was paid by the L.I.C. directly to the opposite party No. 1 in discharging all the debts due from the complainant. As per the statement of account furnished by the first opposite party, the total amount due to it comes to Rs. 8,70,854.05. But according to the complainant, the amount comes to Rs. 8,82,410.27 as per the report of his Chartered Accountant. The complainant is liable to pay only simple interest of 14% p.a. from 1.4.86. It is the case of the complainant that the sale proceeds of the land sold by him to the L.I.C. of India completely wiped out all the debts and no further amount was due to the first opposite party. The first opposite party however refused to return the documents. The first opposite party also stopped to pay from March 1992. The complainant approached the other banks for financial assistance and he was asked to obtain a no objection certificate from the first opposite party. The first opposite party issued a certificate containing flase recitals and hence other banks did not offer loan to him. Hence this complaint claiming compensation in the sum of Rs. 37,500/- for excess interest paid by the complainant and Rs. 1,25,000/- towards loss of profits suffered by the complainant on account of non-return of documents.
3. The claim is resisted by the opposite party. According to the opposite party, the amount outstanding and due from the complainant as on 3.2.92 is Rs. 14,45,738/-. The first opposite party gave permission to the complainant to sell one of the items to L.I.C. of India and the assurance that the sales proceeds paid to it. Accordingly a sum of Rs. 9,00,000/- was received from the L.I.C. of India. There was still a balance of Rs. 4,63,641/- in respect of the open cash credit account, Rs. 21,706/- in respect of Term Loan 1/84 and Rs. 60,391/- in respect of Term Loan 4/85 in all aggregating to a sum of Rs. 5,45,738/- as on 14.2.92. As on 31.1.91, the amount comes to Rs. 7,08,561/-. The claim of the complainant that no further amount due is untenable. The complainant cannot also claim that he is liable to pay simple interest at 14%. There is no question of returning the documents when such amounts are due still. The opposite party do not admit that the complainant's firm became sick. The account submitted by the complainant's Auditor is not acceptable. The calculation made by him is incorrect. It is denied that this first opposite party his issued a no objection certificate containing false recitals. The complainant was enjoying various credit facilities and these facilities were not stopped. The certificated issued is a true one. There is no deficiency of service and negligence on the part of the opposite parties.
4. Exh. Al to A4 and B1 to B5 are marked by consent. Proof affidavits are filed. No oral evidence has been let in.
5. The complainant has come forward with two claims — one for compensation of Rs. 37,500/- for excess interest paid by the complainant and another for compensation of Rs. 1,25,000/- for loss of profit suffered by the complainant on account of non-return of documents.
6. The complainant has been having several credit facilities with the opposite party on deposit of security title deeds. In order to discharge his debts to the first opposite party, the complainant has sold one item of the property with the permission o
