IMPORTANT POINT
Consumer Commission cannot entertain loan matters.

J.M. Malik, Presiding Member—We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant at a considerable length. To our mind, at least two questions have to be answered at the stage of admission of this case. First of all, whether the petitioner is a ‘consumer’? Lastly, in view of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, whether this Commission has jurisdiction to try this case?

2. The facts of the case are these. Shiv Shankar Lal Gupta, the complainant in this case is a promoter of Clarity Gold Mint Ltd., a unit falling under SME Sector for the purpose of setting up of its project of mint of gold and silver coins and manufacturing of semi precious and precious stones studded jewellery. The complainant on account of his requirement approached the Kotak Mahindra Bank, opposite party in this case, at its Jaipur Branch for grant of loan interalia against the collateral security of immovable property situated at plot No. 4 Sardar Patel Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur.

3. The opposite party-bank vide its letter dated 25.9.2008 conveyed the sanction of term loan of Rs.500 lakh to the complainant carrying rate of interest i.e. flat rate of 9.18% which was to be repaid within a period of 60 months. The complainant had to mortgage his property in favour of opposite party bank. The petitioner spent Rs. 5 lakh and registration charges in the sum of Rs.25,000/-. The opposite party paid back Rs.16.40 lakh per month during the period from 1.12.2008 to 23.1.2010 i.e. in aggregate Rs.196.80 lakh. He further paid Rs.87 lakh during the period from 24.1.2010 to 28.7.2010. The amount of Rs.283.80 lakh stood deposited. The disbursement of Rs.500 lakh took place on 24.10.2008.

4. In the meantime, the complainant received communication dated 8.9.2010 christened as notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 from opposite party No. 3. In the meantime, credit facility from State Bank of Indore which stands mortgaged into State Bank of India were obtained and second charge of the same property was extended or which the opposite party, bank having the first charge. The State Bank of India opposite party eluded to be straight about issuing No Objection Letter for sale of the immovable property. The complainant filed a writ petition before the High Court.

5. The complainant being 80 years old wants to get out of the debts and liability owed by the complainant and other institutions by disposal of the said property. The opposite parties have charged more interest than it was agreed between the parties. The complainant had made payment of Rs.4,16,81,775/- to the opposite party. After the said payment, further payment of Rs.11,03,531/- was also to be made. It also came to the notice of the complainant that the exorbitant charge in the name of pre closure charges being Rs.16,14,361.44 was levied which the opposite party bank made the demand under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 intending to seek payment before end of the tenure of the loan i.e. 60 months which was to expire only in September, 2014. It is stated that statement of account filed by the petitioner is not correct. The petitioner sent a notice dated 16.8.2011 through its counsel where it was stated that there was over charge of interest being 41.96 lakh and the bank is under an obligation to refund the said amount alonwith interest @15% per annum from 4.11.2011. The opposite party bank replied that the statement of account was correct. A notice was sent again and similar kind of reply was received. It is contended that the judgment of the Bombay High Court in respect of this case is not applicable.

6. The present compliant was filed with the following prayers.

“(a) award principal amount of Rs.1,77,91,718/- (Rupees One Crore Seventy Lac Ninety One Thousand Seven Hundred Eighteen) towards the loss and damages suffered by the complainant on vari