Canara Bank vs District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission & Others

Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J

By means of this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the orders dated 08.12.2020, 05.02.2021 and 22.06.2021 passed by District Consumer

Disputes Redressal Commission, Haridwar.

According to the petitioner, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haridwar has travelled beyond the scope of its power, by

interfering in a matter, in which the only remedy, which was available to respondent no. 2, was by way of approaching Debts Recovery Tribunal under

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 2 has submitted that the order passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal

Commission is appealable before State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Thus, in

view of the statutory remedy available to the petitioner, the writ petition filed by Canara Bank is not maintainable.

This Court finds substance in the contention made on behalf of respondent no. 2 that on the date of filing of complaint before District Consumer

Disputes Redressal Commission, Haridwar, petitioner had not initiated proceedings under Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and

Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 against respondent no. 2 and, till passing of the order dated 05.02.2021, such proceedings were not drawn

against respondent no. 2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that provisions of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of

Security Interest Act, 2002 were invoked against respondent no. 2 for the first time on 24.04.2021, when notice under Section 13(2) of the said Act

was issued to respondent no. 2.

Although, by the order dated 8.12.2020, learned District Commission had restrained the petitioner-bank from recovering a sum of Rs. 4,22,264/-,

however, learned counsel for the parties are unanimous on the point that the said amount was in respect of monthly instalment payable by respondent

no. 2 to the petitioner-bank, while, the total outstanding in the loan account is much more.

Since provisions of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 were invoked by

petitioner-bank against respondent no.2 much after filing of the complaint before the District Commission, therefore, in the humble opinion of this

Court, this is not a case where there is inherent lack of jurisdiction on the part of the District Commission. Therefore, in view of availability of

statutory remedy under Section 41 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 to the petitioner, this writ petition cannot be entertained.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner shall file appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission within two

weeks from today.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is provided that for a period of six weeks or till disposal of stay application filed by the

petitioner with his appeal, whichever is earlier, District Commission shall not proceed against the petitioner-bank or its officers.

With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed of.