National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC): “It is the choice of the bank to recover the money either from the guarantor or the borrower. It is abhorrent from the principles of law to say that the Bank must first of all recover the money from the borrower and thereafter it can proceed against the guarantor,” held NCDRC while allowing a petition filed by Canara Bank challenging the order of Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission which decided against the recovery made by the bank from the complainant against the dues payable by a person who was introduced by the complainant. The dispute arose when after the demise of borrower; his dues were adjusted against the term deposit of the complainant. The complainant denied the intention to be a guarantor or a surety for the borrower and alleged that he was made to sign on some blank papers. He also contended that the bank should have first approached the family of the borrower who had died. The District Forum as well as the State Commission both decided in favor of the petitioner. After perusing the records, NCDRC set aside the orders of District Forum and State Commission and held that bank is entitled to choose between the guarantor and the borrower for recovery of dues. NCDRC also upheld the recovery made by the bank on the ground that “the complainant signed the blank papers, if any, with his open eyes and on his own volition. Even if he has signed the blank papers, he did it at his own peril.”(Canara Bank v. R.S.Vasan, Revision Petition No. 914 of 2014, decided on September 3, 2014)
To read the full judgment, refer SCCOnLine
