Back
ANDHRA PRADESH, STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HYDERABAD
S.Bhujanga Rao, Member, R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Member
M/s. R. K. Mining Private Limited, Rep. by its Managing Director, Sri. B. Ravi Kalyan Reddy —Complainant
versus
The State Bank of India, represented by its Branch Manager —Opp. Parties
C.C. No. 66 of 2013
Decided on 19.1.2015
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Complainant:M/s. V. Srikantha Rao, Advocate
For the Opp. Parties:Mr. Vamaraju Srikrishnudu, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Original Jurisdiction of a court or tribunal is the extent and scope of its authority to hear and decide a case.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 12—Complaint—Maintainability—Original Jurisdiction of a court or tribunal is the extent and scope of its authority to hear and decide a case—Original jurisdiction refers to inherent authority of a court to hear a case and deliver judgment—Section 11(2) (a) of C.P. Act confers jurisdiction on Consumer Fora providing for institution of complaint within whose jurisdiction opposite party or each of opposite parties (at the time of institution of complaint) reside, carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain or cause of action wholly or in part arises. (Paras 10 and 11)
(B) Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 12—Complaint—Maintainability—A complaint in respect of immovable property is to be filed in Consumer Forum within local limits whose jurisdiction property is situate and if property is situate within jurisdiction of different Fora complaint can be filed in any Consumer Forum within local limits of whose jurisdiction any portion of property is situate—In case of dispute with respect to movable property, where a wrong has been caused to a person, or any damage has been caused to a movable property, then complaint may be instituted either, in place where wrong or damage has been caused, or in place where opposite party (person who caused loss) resides—Where there is a dispute in regard to, agreement or any other kind of consumer dispute, then complaint may be instituted either, in a place where opposite party or any of opposite parties resides or carries on business, or in a place where cause of action, wholly or in part, arises—Section 9 of CP Act provides for institution of complaint in Consumer Forum of inferior grade where value of goods or subject matter does not exceed pecuniary limits of its jurisdiction—Impediment is limitation on geographical and pecuniary factors imposed on it in exercising power conferred on it by statute. (Para 12)
Result: Complaint returned.
Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Member—The complaint is filed under Section 17 (i) (a) of the Consumer Protection Act seeking direction to the opposite party to return the original documents, to grant an amount of Rs. 90,00, 000/- towards compensation and damages.
2. The averments of the complaint are that the complainant-company is engaged in business of prospecting, exploring, operating, excavation and mining productions in India and the directors of the complainant-company are the partners of M/s R.K. Marketing Services and the promoters of M/s R.K.INFRA and Engineering (India) Pvt Ltd and on application of the complainant-company for its business necessity, the opposite party–bank sanctioned loan on 23.03.2009 under cash credit account bearing number 30731626126 to the tune of 9 crores. The complainant-company hypothecated its current assets worth of Rs.15 crores and immovable property worth of Rs.4.25 lakh besides fixed deposit of Rs.13 lakh under TD CS No. 0604486 dated 13.03.2009. The complainant-company deposited its original PAN card, Original Incorporation certificate of the company, Sale Deeds for 4.25 AC of land of Sulthanpur village and Payment of TD CS. No. 0604486, dt 13.03.2009 (FD) for Rs. 13 lakhs with interest thereon, with the opposite party-bank on its assurance that the documents would be returned after closure of the loan account.
3. The complainant-company repaid the entire loan amount on 01.10.2011 and requested the opposite party-bank on 01.10.2011 to close the loan account. The opposite party-bank through its letter dated 10.10.2011 confirmed the closure of loan account and enclosed thereto, demand draft dated 08.10.2011 for balance amount of Rs.7,20,139/-. Contrary to the terms of the credit sanction letter, the opposite party-bank had not returned the documents to the complainant. The opposite party-bank upgraded the status of the complainant with CIBIL after it had closed the loan account on 01.10.2011 and confirmed closure of loan account on 10.11.2011 on account of which the complainant-company was disqualified for getting cash credit facility resulting loss of nine tenders amounting to the tune of Rs.90 lakhs to the complainant-company. The complainant-company got issued notice dated 31.01.2013 through its advocate demanding the opposite party-bank to return the documents and pay damages to the tune of Rs.90 lakh and the opposite party-bank gave reply on 14.02.2013 with false averments. Hence, the complaint.
4. The opposite party has resisted the claim on the premise that the complainant is not consumer. The opposite party has contended that it sanctioned an amount of Rs.9 crores to the complainant and the complainant offered property admeasuring Ac.4-25 in Survey No. 443/AA/2 to, IDA Bollaram, Sulthanpur village, Patancheru Mandal, Medak district as security belonging to M/s RK Marketing Services whose four partners created mortgage by depositing title deeds with the opposite party. The complainant repaid some loan amount and the opposite party adjusted the remaining loan amount from out of the amount covered under deposit receipt which was deposited by the complainant in addition to the collateral security. The opposite party closed the loan account on 01.10.2011 and intimated the same to the complainant on 10.10.2011 as also the opposite party had sent the balance amount from the fixed deposit, Rs.7,20,139/- and informed the representative of the complainant company that competent person can take back the original documents. The mortgagers had not visited the opposite party bank to take back the original documents.
5. There is no practice for the branch of a bank or financial institution to report to CIBIL about the status of a loan account holder. CIBIL will extract the loan particulars from the central data base of banks and other financial institutions at corporate central level and it will update the status and the opposite party through its regional business office, Kadapa informed
