State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Alpine Pressure Cooker And ... vs Punjab National Bank. & Anr. on 25 August, 2022
H. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION SHIMLA.
First Appeal No.: 371/2019
Date of Presentation: 07.12.2019
Order Reserved on : 23.08.2022
Date of Order : 25.08.2022
......
M/S Alpine Pressure Cooker and KITCHENWARE Pvt. Ltd.,
through its Managing Director Sh. Brajesh Nakra s/o Sh. Hans
Raj Nakra r/o HouseNo.1092/4 Birbal Nagar, Una Road-
Hoshiarpur, District Hoshiarpur, Punjab
...... Appellant/Complainant
Versus
1. Punjab National Bank, Branch Gagret, Tehsil Amb,
District Una, HP through its Senior Manager
2. Circle Office, Punjab National Bank Hamirpur, District
Hamirpur, HP
.......Respondents/Opposite Parties
Coram
Hon'ble Justice Inder Singh Mehta, President
Hon'ble Ms. Sunita Sharma, Member.
Hon'ble Mr. R.K. Verma, Member
Whether approved for reporting?1
For Appellant: Mr. Rahul Gautam, Advocate
For Respondent: Ms. Kiran Sharma, Advocate
Vice Mr. Digvijay Singh Thakur, Advocate
Justice Inder Singh Mehta, President
ORDER
Instant appeal is arising out of the order dated 04.10.2019 passed by the Learned District Consumer Redressal 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order? M/S Alpine Pressure Cooker versus Punjab National Bank (FA No.371/2019) Forum Una, in Consumer Complaint No.44/2017 titled M/S Alpine Pressure Cooker versus Punjab National Bank and another. Brief facts of Case:
2. Briefly, the case of the complainant is that complainant is a registered company and availing financial facilities i.e. Cash Credit Limit from opposite party No.1 as per the guidelines contained in the sanction letter issued by the bank authorities.
According to the complainant, due to some circumstances created by the other directors of complainant- company with the connivance of the bank officials, the business of the complainant became sick and declared NPA by the Bank. Complainant-company through its Managing Director submitted a request for one time settlement with the opposite party No.1. The said request was accepted by the opposite party No.1. The complainant was advised to deposit Rs.19.00 lacs in installments as earnest money towards compromise. Accordingly, the aforesaid amount was deposited with the bank being one time settlement in June 2015. However, opposite parties declined the said proposal and thereby violated their own undertaking after receiving earnest money of Rs.19.00 lacs. According to the complainant-company, the opposite parties have not complied with the guidelines of Reserve Bank of India. 2 M/S Alpine Pressure Cooker versus Punjab National Bank (FA No.371/2019)
3. The complaint is contested by the opposite parties by filing joint reply, wherein it is pleaded that loan accounts of the complainant were declared NPA on 24.10.2013. The proceedings under SARFAESI ACT were initiated and notice under Section 13(2) of the Act was served. The amount deposited by the complainant was in connection with the liquidation of the bank's dues and was rightly appropriated towards pending liability. The complainant was the willful defaulter. OA for recovery of Rs.2,53,92,177.53 inclusive of interest as on 15.11.2015 is pending in Debts Recovery Tribunal, Chandigarh where subject matter of this complaint is pending disposal. The factory with raw material, machinery and property situated at Hoshiarpur was sold by the Bank under SURFEASI Act and the amount so recovered by sale was adjusted in the loan accounts of the complainant. The complainant has no cause of action.
4. The Learned Forum below after hearing the parties on maintainability of the complaint dismissed the same at admission stage.
5. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Ld. District Commission, the Appellant/complainant-company has preferred the instant appeal before this Commission.
6. We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and have also perused the entire record carefully. 3 M/S Alpine Pressure Cooker versus Punjab National Bank (FA No.371/2019)
7. Learned counsel of the appellant has submitted that appellant has availed loan about Rs.3.00 crores from the respondents' bank. He further submitted that appellant became defaulter in the said loan account. Settlement proceedings between the parties were initiated and a sum of Rs.1,19,00,000/- was accepted as one time settlement amount and earnest money of Rs.19,00,000/- was paid to the respondents' bank. Learned counsel of the appellant has further submitted that respondents' bank run away from the one time settlement scheme and the earnest money of Rs.19,00,000/- deposited for one time settlement was adjusted by the respondents' bank towards the loan amount. He further submitted that proceedings are also pending adjudication before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Chandigarh. He further submitted that the judgment of Gian Chand Vs. Tata Motors Finance Ltd., relied upon in the impugned order is not applicable in the present case. He further submitted that the District Forum below went wrong in holding that complaint is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act. He further submitted that complaint of the complainant is maintainable under section 2(d)(ii) and (o) of the Consumer Protection Act and relied upon judgments, i.e. Arun Bhatia Vs. HDFC Bank, Civil Appeal No.5204-5205 of 2022, 2006 (5) Supreme Court Cases 727 and AIR 2007 MP 114, titled Laxmi Grih Udyog & Anr. Versus State of MP and Ors. 4 M/S Alpine Pressure Cooker versus Punjab National Bank (FA No.371/2019)
8. On the other hand, learned counsel of the respondent has opposed the contentions of the learned counsel of the appellant and submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned order and appeal of the appellant be dismissed. FINDING
09. Admitted facts emerged out of the pleadings are that the appellant is a registered company and availed financial facilities i.e. Cash Credit Limit from the respondents' bank. It is also admitted fact that the appellant-company is a defaulter and the cash credit limit accounts were declared as Non-Performing- Assets (NPA) by the respondents' bank. It is not disputed that proceedings under SARFAESI Act were initiated against the appellant-company and the same were pending at Debts Recovery Tribunal, Chandigarh.
10. We have perused the relevant documents available on the record.
11. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that one time settlement amount of Rs.19.00 lacs be returned to the appellant loses its significance as the same is not a matter of right. The order passed by the Learned District Forum below is well reasoned and does not call any interference by this Commission.
12. However, if any dispute pertains to the loan amount, the same is the subject matter of Debts Recovery Tribunal and 5 M/S Alpine Pressure Cooker versus Punjab National Bank (FA No.371/2019) this fact has been admitted by the learned counsel for the appellant during the course of arguments. The appellant may raise the same before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The judgments relied upon by the appellant are not helpful to it in the present facts and circumstances of the instant case.
13. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, we find no merit in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
14. Certified copy of this order be sent to District Forum below and file of State Commission be consigned to record room after due completion. Certified copy of order be sent to the parties and their counsel(s) strictly as per rules. Pending applications, if any, also disposed of.
Justice Inder Singh Mehta President Sunita Sharma Member R.K. Verma Member 25.08.2022 Pkw 6