Vimal Narayan vs Authorized Officer And Agm, Bank Of India & Anr

R.K. Agrawal, President Member

Mr. Vimal Narayan, Resident of 41/23, Mansarover, Varun Path, Jaipur (hereinafter to be referred to as “the Complainant”) has approached this Commission by filing the Consumer Complaint against the Authorized Officer and AGM, Bank of India, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as the “Opposite Party No.1”) and Mewar Pesticides & Fertilizers Pvt. Ltd. Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as the “Opposite Party No.2”), seeking following reliefs:-

(i) to pay ₹3,93,38,992/- (Rupees Three Crores Ninety Three Lakhs Thirty Eight Thousand Nine Hundred Ninety-Two Only) as financial loss suffered due to gross negligence and Unfair Trade Practice adopted by the Opposite Party No.1 in providing defective banking services to the Complainant;

(ii) to pay ₹25 lakh (Rupees Twenty Five Lakh only) to the Complainant for the losses suffered in damages to reputation occurred by the defective banking services of OP.

(iii) to pay ₹25 lakh (Rupees Twenty Five Lakh only) to the Complainant/ Promoter Director for mental agony, harassment and physical suffering faced by him in the last three years to save the Unit and its reputation;

(iv) To pay ₹2.50 Lakh (Rupees two Lakh fifty thousand only) as costs of litigation;

(v) Other relief deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the matter may also be granted in favour of the Complainant;

According to the averments made in the Complaint, the Complainant is a retired Central Government Employee and to continue his livelihood after his retirement and to engage his two sons to earn their livelihood, incorporated the business entity in form of the Private Limited Company in the name of Shree Mangalam Agrofertilizers Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter to be referred to as “the Company”). The Complainant’s family initially acquired 40% share of the aforementioned Company but thereafter increased their share to 65%.

The Complainant filed an application with the Opposite Party No.1 Bank for sanction of Term Loan of ₹110 lakhs and Cash Credit of ₹60 lakhs to install plant and working capital. After paying the service charges to the Opposite Party No.1 Bank, the loan facility of ₹110 Lakh by way of Term Loan and ₹60 Lakh as Cash Credit Limit was sanctioned on furnishing collateral security. On account of certain further developments, the Company suffered heavy production loss and the revenue generation decreased drastically as a result of which the Company could not repay the interest and EMI liability since September, 2017. The Company’s loan account was declared as NPA on 02.01.2018. Symbolic possession of the collateral security was taken by the Opposite Party No.1 Bank on 28.03.2018. The matter was taken up to the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur but the Complainant could not get any relief. The Appeal before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) could not be filed. The Opposite Party No.1 took over the possession of the factory and plant and machinery and put the Complainant’s residential house on auction on 05.11.2018 which was released on deposit of ₹75.50 lakhs. The prayer for restructuring the loan was not accepted. The physical possession of the Unit was taken over on 28.12.2018 and it was e-auctioned on 25.03.2020. The possession of the factory was handed over to the Opposite Party No.2, M/s. Mewar Pesticides and Fertilizers Pvt. Ltd. On 22.04.2020. The Company approached the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur by filing SB Civil Writ Petition No. 5460 of 2020 which was dismissed vide Order dated 08.09.2020 leaving it open to the Company to avail the remedy under the law. From the record, it is not clear as to whether the Company has availed of any remedy under law or not.

The fact which is not in dispute is that the present Complaint has been filed in the individual capacity and it has not been filed by the Company. The Company, Shree Mangalam Agrofertilizers Pvt. Ltd. is a juristic personality and if it has any grievance it has to seek remedy under the law. The present Complaint filed by the Complainant, Vimal Narayan is not maintainable and it is accordingly dismissed.

It may be mentioned here that the question as to whether the Company can file a Complaint under Section 2 (7) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 (hereinafter to be referred to as “the Act”) in respect of the dealings with the Bank which are commercial in nature or whether this Commission has Pecuniary Jurisdiction to entertain the present Complaint as provided under Section 58 (1)(a) of the Act, is left opon to be considered in an appropriate case.

In view of the foregoing discussion, it is held that the Complaint preferred by the Complainant, Vimal Narayan in his individual capacity is not maintainable and accordingly dismissed.

Registry is directed to give a defective Case Number to this matter.