The petitioner has filed the above writ petition challenging the recovery proceedings initiated by the 1st respondent Bank on two grounds. The petitioner primarily contends that the petitioner had availed of the facility to purchase a vehicle, which had manufacturing defects for which, the petitioner had been before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (CDRF), which directed the vehicle to be repaired. That however would not stand in the way of the recovery proceedings. Since, it is for the petitioner to ensure that, the vehicle purchased was one, which could be operated functionally. The next contention is with respect to Ext.P9, issued by the Joint Registrar (General), directing the complaint of the petitioner to be considered. The complaint of the petitioner, according to W.P.(C) No.20187 of 2013 - W 2 the respondent Bank was with respect to the Debt Relief Scheme, which was applicable only to agricultural loans and not to vehicle loans. In such circumstance, the writ petition is devoid of merit and the same is dismissed.
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE SB