Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/205/2021

M/s Vansh Poultry Farm - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bank of Baroda - Opp.Party(s)

Devinder Kumar

21 Jul 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/205/2021
Date of Institution	:	26.3.2021
Date of Decision	:	21/7/2023

 

 

1. M/s Vansh Poultry Farm, Village Shazadpur, District Ambala, Haryana through its Parners Smt. Anju Rani & Sh. K.S. Singla residents of House No.829, Sector 4, Panchkula.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

 

2. Bank of Baroda, Head office: Baroda Bhavan, R.C. Dutt Road. Alkapur, Baroda 390007 through its Chairman/Managing Director.
3. Bank of Baroda, Regional Office: SCO No. 62-63, First floor, Bank square, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh through its Regional Manager.
4. Bank of Baroda, SCO No. 62-63, Bank Square, Sector 17B, Chandigarh 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. Vishal Ahuja, counsel for OPs.

Per SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, Member

 

     Briefly stated the complainant wanted to expand its pollutary farm and  for the said purpose  applied a loan with the OPs to the tune of Rs.125.00 lakh and the same was sanctioned vide letter dated 14.11.2017. Out of the sanctioned amount of Rs.125.00 lakh the OP No.3 released only Rs.49.75 lakh to the complainant for the purpose of construction of building and for getting some other machinery etc. Since the OPs failed to release the entire sanctioned loan amount so the complainant approached HDFC Bank Limited for getting loan with a view to complete the ongoing project of expansion of poultry farm. After completion of all documentary formalities the HDFC bank agreed to take over the remaining liability of loan amount and disbursed the remaining loan to OP No.3 on behalf of the complainant firm, thereby taking over the entire liability of remaining loan of complainant with the HDFC bank. It is alleged that the OPs annoyed with the decision of complainant to shift the loan to HDFC bank debited a sum of Rs.5,22,349.42 on 4.11.2019 as pre-payment charges from the account of the complainant. Against this illegal and arbitrary act of the OPs, the complainant sent many request for the refund of the debited amount and even sent legal notice 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 Parties in their reply vehemently denied that they were bound to release the entire sanctioned loan amount of Rs.125 lakh to the complainant. The further advancement of loan amount was dependent of compliance of the terms and conditions of the sanction Annexure C-1. The complainant admittedly failed to increase the number of birds and which is evident from their letter Annexure OP-1/2.  As the complainant miserably failed to comply with the terms and conditions of advancement no further amount was disbursed to them.  The letter sent by the bank to comply with the condition is annexed as OP-1/4.  The complainant repeatedly requested to comply with the terms and conditions but firstly they kept on delaying the matter on one pretext or the other and later flatly refused to comply with the  terms and conditions and as such the Ops were constrained to stop further advancement. It is denied that the OPs debited any amount illegally and arbitrarily from the account of the complainant. The prepayment charges were debited as per the prevalent rates. The complainant intentionally concealed the fact that Rs.1,65,843/- refund to them.  Denying any deficiency on their part, all other allegations made in the complaint have been denied being wrong.
3. Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
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. On perusal of the complaint it is observed that the main grievance of the complainant is that OPs have not released the entire sanctioned loan amount and when the complainant closed the loan account the OPs charged illegally foreclosure charges.
7. Regarding first point we have gone through the documents annexed by the OPs as Annexure OP-1/2, OP-1/3 and OP-1/4 and Annexure C-1  by the complainant collectively wherefrom it is gathered that the further advancement of loan was dependent on compliance of the terms and conditions of the sanction. It is observed that the complainant had failed to increase the numbers of birds and moreover the financial regarding capital and unsecured loans was not brought in by partners as per sanction terms and conditions.  Since the complainant themselves failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the advancement hence, we are of view that no further amount could be disbursed to them by the OPs.
8. As far as the point of charging of foreclosure charges is concerned, we have gone through the various RBI Circulars Nos. RBI/2013-14/582 DBOD Dir DC NO.110/13.03.00/2013-14 dated May 7 2014, DB.Dir.No.7957/13.1.0.00//2014-15 dated November 28, 2014, which permits the waiver of foreclosure charges in case of individuals only. From the reading of the same it is evident that the benefit of waiver of pre-payment charges is not available where the borrowers are not individuals. e.g. in case of firm etc. as in the present case. Hence, the  OPs have rightly levied foreclosure charges as per rules and regulations and there is no  deficiency on the part of the OPs.  Thus the complaint is meritless.
9. 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.
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/-
21/7/2023			[Suresh Kumar Sardana]
mp			Member