District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No. 120/2022.
Date of Institution:03.03.2022.
Date of Order: 07.07.2023.
M/s. Khayati Flour Mill, At plot No.1 Malerna Road, Sector-61, Ballabgarh Faridabad Haryana, through its Sole proprietor Sh. Vishnu Kumar.
…….Complainant……..
Versus
Axis Bank Limited, Sector-16, Faridabad, through General Manager.
…Opposite party
BEFORE: Amit Arora……………..President
Indira Bhadana………….Member.
PRESENT: Sh. Kapil Bhadana, counsel for the complainant.
Sh. Dharam Dev, counsel for opposite party.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant was the proprietorship firm under the name and style of Ms Khyati Flour Mill duly incorporated and Sh. Vishnu Kumar was the sole proprietor of the firm. The complainant firm was doing business of manufacturing flour. The Government of India launched a new scheme for MSME/small firm/industries. The complainant for smooth and proper functioning of the firm apply for SBB CGTMSE LIMIT scheme from the opposite party bank and which facility was sanctioned by the opposite party vide sanction letter dated 15.09.2020 and cash credit facility upto
Rs.28 lakhs. The complainant had been paying premium regularly to the bank for the abovesaid scheme. The mother of the complainant (Vishnu Kumar) had died on 18.5.2021 during Covid 19 Pandemic. The opposite party bank had freeze the bank account of the complainant from July to October of 2021 due to which the complainant had suffered huge loss and the complainant had to make alternate arrangement for financial assistance. The complainant requested the official of opposite party bank to unfreeze the account of the complainant but the employees of the opposite party ignored the calls and messages of the complainant and which was alter on become operative. The complainant applied for renewal of the above scheme vide letter dated 11.10.2021 but till date it had not been renewed by the bank and complainant company had to take assistance from other for proper functioning of business. The purpose of the launching of the scheme by the Government was not followed and considered by the opposite party bank instead by freezing the bank account and by not renewing the scheme by making some excuses, the opposite party bank followed unfair trade practice. The business of the complainant could not take off and suffered great hardship and Shri Vishnu Kumar proprietor of firm suffered from mental agony and harassment due to the attitude and deficiency of service of employees of the opposite parties. The aforesaid act of opposite party amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite party to:
a) renew the scheme so that the firm would work smoothly and properly as the complainant had paid the premium regularly and further directed not to make the account NPA of the complainant.
b) The complainant on account financial loss was entitled to tune of Rs.12,00,000/- and on account of deficiency in service was entitled to receive
compensation of Rs.2 lacs in lieu of physical pain , mental agony and trauma due to all this.
c) pay Rs. 35,000 /-as litigation expenses.
2. Opposite party put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that the complainant was a borrower of the opposite party bank and had availed credit facilities of SBB Cash Credit Facility of Rs.28 lakh vide sanction lettr dated 15.09.2020. As per the sanction letter, the rate of interest was agreed equivalent to REPO Rate + 7.20%, 11.2-0% p.a. against primary security of hypothecation of current assets, book debts, personal guarantees of him addressee and CGYMSE guarantee. The complainant had executed various documents including deed of hypothecation, personal guarantees. Facility agreement in favour of the bank. The complainant had defaulted in repayment of dues of the opposite party bank and had failed and neglected to pay the same in accordance with the agreed terms and conditions and the account had been declared NPA as on 28.02.2022. The opposite party had recalled the Credit Facilities and had issued loan recall notice as on 31.3.2022 calling upon the complainant to repay the total outstanding amount of Rs.27,93,236.92 in respect of account No. 920030065474938 as on 28.02.2022 alongwith pendentalite and future interest at the respective contractual interest rate. Opposite party denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
5. In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against
opposite party–Axis Bank Ltd. with the prayer to: a) renew the scheme so that the firm would work smoothly and properly as the complainant had paid the premium regularly and further directed not to make the account NPA of the complainant. b)The complainant on account financial loss was entitled to tune of Rs.12,00,000/- and on account of deficiency in service was entitled to receive compensation of Rs.2 lacs in lieu of physical pain , mental agony and trauma due to all this. c) pay Rs. 35,000 /-as litigation expenses.
To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence, Ex.CW1/A – affidavit of Vishnu Kumar, Ex.C-1 – RC,, Ex.C2 – Registration certificate,, Ex.C-3 – Statement of account, Ex.C-4 – letter dated 11.10.2021.
On the other hand counsel for the opposite party strongly agitated and opposed. As per the evidence of the opposite party Ex.RW1/A – Shri Santosh Singh, the Legal Support Manager of Axis Bank having its office at Retail Lending-Collections & FCU Axis Bank, Axis House, Japee Greens Wish Town, 1-14, Tower-2, 2nd floor, Sec.-128, Noida Expressway, Noida-201301, Ex.RW1/1 – power of attorney, Ex.RW1/2 – Application for sanctioning of credit facilities, Ex.RW1/3 - sanction letter, Ex.RW1/4 - - Facility Agreement, Ex.DW1/5 -Deed of hypothecation.
6. The present complaint is not maintainable on two counts. First, the complainant is a commercial entity and hence does not come within the definition of consumer as defined in Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. Second, the complaint is not maintainable against the opposite party as the complainant is a borrower of the opposite party and is in consistent default and his account has been declared NPA as on 28.02.2022.
Counsel for the opposite party has placed on reliance in case titled Shrikant G. Mantri Vs. Punjab National Bank passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 11397 of 2016 decided on 22.2.2022.
Ratio of the authority is applicable to the facts of the present case
7. Keeping in view of the above submissions, the Commission is of the opinion that the complaint is dismissed, being without merits. Copy of this order be given to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to the record room.
Announced on: 07.07.2023 (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Indira Bhadana)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
