R SETHURAMAN Vs. MANAGER INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IS an appeal filed by the complainant against the Order dated 7th July, 1993 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tamil Nadu (for short the State Commission). The complaint had been filed against the present respondents, the Manager, the Indian Overseas Bank, College Campus, and the Indian Overseas Bank, Central Office, Annasalai, Madras. Vide the impugned order the State Commission dismissed the complaint. In the complaint the complainants claimed for the recovery of Rs. 37,500 and his grievance was that all the debts due to the opposite parties were wiped out by payment of Rs. 9 lakhs. The State Commission observed that all these matters can be settled after taking into account and this relief could be granted only by way of Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. The complainant has challenged the findings of the State Commission before this Commission by way of this appeal.

(2.) THE averments of the complainants are that he is a manufacturer of medicine. He was having various loan facilities with the opposite party such an Open Cash Credit, Term Loans and Funds Loans and Supply Bills. The complainant had deposited several documents of title in respect of his properties. The complainants unit, M/s. Win Pharma became sick w.e.f. 1st April, 1986. The opposite parties promised to render financial assistance for rehabilitation but failed to do so. The complainant sold one acre of land to Life Insurance Corporation of India with the permission of the opposite party for Rs. 9 lakhs. The Corporation paid that amount directly to the 1st opposite party. The complainants case is that in view of the said payment all his debts due to the opposite parties were discharged because as per the statement of account furnished by the 1st opposite party the total amount due to it comes to Rs. 8,70,854.05. However, according to the Chartered Accountant of the complainant the amount due comes to Rs. 8,82,410.27. Further, the complainant is labile to pay simple interest at the rate of 14% per annum from 1st April, 1986. Further grievance of the complainant is that despite the fact that the sale proceeds of the land completely wiped out all the debts due to the 1st opposite party it refused to return the documents. The 1st opposite party also stopped payments from March, 1992. The complainant asked the 1st opposite party to issue a no objection certificate as he wanted to avail financial assistance from other Banks. The 1st opposite party issued a certificate containing false recitals and hence other Banks did not advance him loans. Thus the complainants claim for the refund of Rs. 37,500/ - which is said to have been charged by the opposite party as excess interest. The complainant also claimed Rs. 1,25,000/ - towards loss of profits suffered by him on account of non -return of the documents. Because of the defective certificate issued by the 1st opposite party he could not get loans from other banks and as the documents of title were not returned to him, he could not sell his property and therefore, he had borrowed money from other sources at an exorbitant rate of interest at 36% per annum.

(3.) WE have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. We do not find any force in the present appeal. Our reasons are as follows :