Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/658/2021

Mohan Singh Rangra - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bank of Baroda - Opp.Party(s)

Ajit Singh

07 Dec 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/658/2021
Date of Institution	:	29.9.2021
Date of Decision	:	7/12/2023

 

Mohan Singh Rangra son of Sh. Raj Singh H. No.1505/1, Sector 19B, Chandigarh.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

Bank of Baroda, SCF No.72-73/A, Grain Market, Sector-26, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager.     

 .  … Opposite Party

 

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

                       

ARGUED BY	:	Complainant in person.
	:	Ms. Kanchan Sehgal, Advocate for OP.

Per SURJEET KAUR, Member

     Briefly stated the complainant availed credit facility of OP bank i.e. Baroda Mortgage loan limit to the tune of Rs.17,50,000/- in the year 2013, which was extended time to time for the period of one year. Since 2013 when the sanction was granted by the OP to the complainant to the credit card facility the OP also charging Rs.8,550/- every year from the complainant and the credit card facility was extended every year as promised. There is no break in the payment of annual charges by the complainant. However on 29.10.2020 the OP  bank deducted an amount of Rs.11,509/- from the account of the complainant and when the complainant enquired about the same he was shocked to know that the complainant is bound to spend 60% of the total sanctioned loan amount of Rs.17,50,000/-. It is alleged that though there is no such condition in the sanction letter dated 11.3.2013. The complainant approached the OPs and showed them the terms and conditions and accordingly the Ops after realizing their mistake refunded the said amount of Rs.11,509/- on 6.1.2021. However, again the OP bank on 4.4.2021 deducted an amount of Rs.12,605.84 from the account of the complainant and despite repeated requests of the complainant for the refund of the same they repudiated the claim of the complainant vide intimation letter dated 19.4.2021.  When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed the complainant sent legal notice dated 10.9.2021 requesting the OP to refund the amount deducted but to no avail. 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  party in its reply while admitting the factual matrix of the case stated that the answering OP bank never charge any hidden or illegal charges.  The charges are always taken as per terms and conditions of loan and as per guidelines/circular issued by RBI/Bank. It is admitted that an amount of Rs.11,509/- was deducted from the account of the complainant due to under utilization of credit facility by the complainant. It is denied that the same was refunded after realizing the mistake by the answering OP rather the same was refunded as one time gesture in pursuance of orders received from Banking Ombudsman. It is averred that the amount of Rs.12605/- was deducted from the account of the complainant due to low utilization of limit by complainant and the bank is authorized to deduct the annual charges/commitment charges as per banking guidelines and the same have been charged as per terms and conditions duly agreed by complainant. As per RBI guidelines banks are free to evolve their own guidelines in regard to commitment charge for ensuring credit discipline and as such there is no malifide intention on the part of the OP bank.  All other allegations made in the complaint has been  denied being wrong.
3.  Despite ample opportunities granted, no rejoinder was filed by the complainant and as such the opportunity to file the same was closed vide order dated 27.2.2023.
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. The sole grouse of the complainant through the present complaint is that he has wrongly been levied  commitment charges by the OPs due to low utilization of limit by him.
7. The stand taken by the OP is that the disputed commitment charges are levied as per RBI guidelines, hence, there is no deficiency on its part.
8. After going through the documents on record, it is abundantly clear from Annexure R-4 the RBI guidelines at page 27 of the written statement of the OP that the Banks are free to evolve their own guidelines in regard to commitment charges for ensuring credit discipline. The relevant portion of clause 3.6 under the head of Commitment charges is  as under:-

The levy of commitment charge is not mandatory and it is left to the discretion of the financing banks/consortiums/syndicate. Accordingly, banks are free to evolve their own guidelines in regard to commitment charges for ensuring credit discipline.”   

 

 

9. Further Annexure R-3 is the circular issued by OP bank to all its branches and office in India. Accordingly to the said circular the terms and conditions with regard to commitment charges applicable w.e.f. 1.1.2021 are as under:-

“In case of quarterly average utilization of sanction limit is less than 60% of the sanction limit, commitment charges to be levied @0.50% p.a. of entire utilization portion on quarterly basis and no commitment charges in case quarterly average utilization is 60% or more.”

 

10. Pertinently, the complainant is consumer of OP bank and he needs to honour  the terms and conditions which he has agreed upon in the beginning before the sanction of the loan in question.  Annexure R-1 is  declaration-cum-Undertaking-cum - authority dated 12.3.2013, which makes it clear that the complainant has given authority to the OP bank to deduct charges as per banking guidelines. Also Annexure R-2 is the letter of sanction of the borrower according to which in case of quarterly average utilization of sanction limit is less than 60% of the sanction limit, commitment charges to be levied @0.50% p.a. of entire utilization portion on quarterly basis. Hence, no case is made out.
11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
12. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.

			sd/- [Pawanjit Singh]
			President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member
7/12/2023
mp