Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/742/2022

MAYASHA LIFESCIENCES - Complainant(s)

Versus

AXIS BANK LTD - Opp.Party(s)

DEVINDER KUMAR

10 Aug 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/742/2022
Date of Institution	:	22.8.2022
Date of Decision	:	10/8/2023

 

M/s Mayasha Lifescience, H.B. 86, village Bhatian, Nalagarh, District Solan, Himachal Pardesh through its partner Sh. Ram Niwas Bishnoi competent and duly authorized.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. Axis Bank Limited SCO No. 46, Urban Estate, Sector 4, Panchkula through its Branch Manager.
2. Axis Bank Limited Loan Branch, SCO No. 156-158 ground floor, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh 160017 through its Branch Manager.

.  … Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER MEMBER

                       

ARGUED BY		Sh. Devinder Kumar, counsel for complainant.
		Sh. Gaurav Gupta, counsel for OPs.

Per SURJEET KAUR, Member

     Briefly stated,  the complainant firm on the allurement of the OPs availed overdraft facilities with the Ops with certain terms and conditions with overdraft facility amounting to Rs.1,40,00,000/- and DOD facility amounting to Rs.40,00,000/-.  The overdraft and DOD facility was provided to the complainant for a specific period. In addition to that  the OP No.2 provided Covid Loan amounting to Rs.25,00,000/- to the complainant. The OPs mortgaged the property of the complainant for security purpose.  The complainant utilized the facility provided by Ops upto June 2022.  The complainant requested the OPs to reduce the rate of interest and enhance the credit facilities many times but to no avail. Thus, the complainant approach the other bank i.e. HDFC bank, sector 8, Chandigarh who agreed to take over the loan  facilities and to enhance the limit. Accordingly the complainant requested the OPs to close the loan account, however, the OPs intimate that 2% foreclosure charges shall levied, which was protested by the complainant vide email dated 12.7.2022. It is alleged that the OPs are illegal in charging foreclosure charges for closure of the account and did not release the property document of the complainant. Alleging the aforesaid act of Opposite Parties deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part, this complaint has been filed

2. The Opposite Parties in their reply while admitting the factual matrix of the case stated that as per terms and conditions of sanction letter dated 26.6.2021 which were duly signed by the complainant in case of takeover of credit facility  a penal charges of 2 percentage plus GST shall be levied on the sanctioned limit. Takeover charges shall not be levied on individual borrower for floating loans. Further the accounts in question  of complainants had already been closed in the OPs bank system and no objection certificate and property documents were already provided to the complainant on 27.9.2022 vide Annexure OP-1/2 and as such the complaint is not maintainable. All other allegations made in the complaint has been denied being wrong.
3. No rejoinder filed by complainant.
4. Contesting parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and gone through the record of the case.
6. Through the present complaint the complainant has prayed for closure of the loan account and issuance of No Objection Certificate in respect to the alleged facility and COVID 19 loan account. Further it has been prayed for release of property documents.
7. Admittedly the complaint has been filed by the  complainant on 22.8.2022 and the NOC was given to the complainant on 27.9.2022  and also the alleged property documents have been provided to the complainant vide Annexure OP-1/2 dated 27.9.2022. It is proved on record that despite closure of loan account, it is the inactive approach of the OPs due to which they did not issue the NOC and property documents in time to the complainant which forced the complainant to knock the door of this Commission only for the purpose of getting No Objection Certificate and property documents. This act of OPs caused mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant, and as such the OPs are liable to compensate the complainant for the same.
8. In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint partly succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed. OPs are directed as under:-

1. to pay Rs.5000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;
2. to pay Rs.5000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

9.      This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(ii) above
10.      Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned

			sd/- [Pawanjit Singh]
			President
			sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member   sd/-
10/8/2023			[Suresh Kumar Sardana]
mp			Member