43, RASHBEHARI AVENUE, KOLKATA 700 026 3. THE GENERAL MANAGER, RESERVE BANK OF INIDA DEPARTMENT OF BANKING SUPERVISION, NETAJI SUBHAS ROAD , B.B.D. BAGH KOLKATA 700 001 ...........Respondent(s) FIRST APPEAL NO. 291 OF 2019 (Against the Order dated 16/01/2019 in Complaint No. 79/2013 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. J.D. HEALTH CARE PVT. LTD. REP. BY ITS PARTNER SRI CHANDRA MOHAN JHA, PANKHABARI ROAD (NEAR HIMUL ) NIMAIJOTE, MATIGARA SILIGURI 734010 WEST BENGAL ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE & 2 ORS. ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE, EBLOCK, CONNAUGHT PLACE NEW DELHI 110001 2. CHIEF MANAGER, ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE SSI BRANCH KOLKATA, 43, RASHBEHARI AVENUE, KOLKATA 700 026 3. THE GENERAL MANAGER, RESERVE BANK OF INIDA DEPARTMENT OF BANKING SUPERVISION, NETAJI SUBHAS ROAD , B.B.D. BAGH KOLKATA 700 001 ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE DR. INDER JIT SINGH,PRESIDING MEMBER FOR THE APPELLANT : MR. NIKHIL JAIN, ADVOCATE (THROUGH VC) FOR THE RESPONDENT : MS. ARTI SINGH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & 2 (THROUGH VC) Dated : 11 September 2024 ORDER 1. These two First Appeals (FAs) have been filed by the Appellants against the Respondents, as detailed above, under section 19 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the order dated 16.01.2019 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal, (hereinafter referred to as the 'State Commission'), in Consumer Complaint (CC) no. 78 and 79 of 2023 respectively. 2. FA 290 of 2019 and FA 291 of 2019 have been filed by the Appellants, who were Complainant before the State Commission in the said CC No. 78 of 2013 and CC No. 79 of 2013 respectively. 3. As both the Appeals have been filed against the similar order of the State Commission, Respondents are the same, and issues for consideration/determination are related, these are being taken up together under this order. However, for the sake of convenience, First Appeal (FA) No. 290 of 2019 is treated as the lead case. 4. Notice was issued to the Respondent(s) in both the FAs on 09.12.2021. Parties filed Written Arguments/Synopsis on 01.05.2023 (Appellant) and on 28.12.2023 (Respondent 1 & 2) respectively in both the appeals. 5. Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the FA/290/2019, Order of the State Commission and other case records are that: i) The Appellant, a partnership firm, comprising Appellant No. 2 and Appellant No. 3, invested over 2 crores in managing a factory previously owned by Smt. Jaya Das. On 30.07.2007, the Appellant applied for a cash credit facility of Rs.150 lakhs from Respondent No. 2 and was sanctioned Rs.147 lakhs of cash credit on 14.08.2007. The Gorkha Movement and landslides severely disrupted the factory's operations, leading to significant losses to the Appellant's firm. ii) On 02.02.2009, the Appellant requested restructuring of the loan into 120 monthly instalments at 10% p.a. interest. With no response, the Appellant offered Rs.75 lakhs for a OneTime Settlement (OTS) on 08.08.2009, and repeated the offer on 12.12.2009 for OTS. Respondent No. 2 rejected the offer but proposed revising it vide letter dated 15.12.2009. On 26.12.2009, Appellant revised the OTS and offered a sum of Rs.1 crore as full and final settlement. On 09.08.2010, Appellant then increased the settlement amount to Rs.1.20 crores which was subsequently increased to Rs.1.30 crores. iii) Respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 24.01.2011 requested modification of the settlement offer to either by repaying Rs.1.20 crores in 3 months or an EMI plan for a period of 12 months with interest. The Appellant opted for the EMI plan, depositing Rs.9 lakhs on 12.04.2011 as an upfront amount and also submitted an application for acceptance of OTS. On 04.08.2011, Respondent No. 2 informed that the settlement proposal was for Rs.1.30 crores, which was later approved at Rs.153.28 lakhs on