Haryana

Karnal

CC/245/2021

M/s Shyama Rice Mills - Complainant(s)

Versus

Canara Bank - Opp.Party(s)

V.K. Kapoor

20 Jul 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

                                                        Complaint No. 245 of 2021

                                                        Date of instt.28.04.2021

                                                        Date of Decision:20.07.2023

 

M/s Shyam Rice Mills through its proprietor Shri Shyam Lal Goyal son of Shri Purshotam Dass Goyal, resident of village New Bambha Colony, village Nissing, District Karnal.

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

Canara Bank, Branch at village Nissing, tehsil Nissing, District Karnal, through its Branch Manager.

…..Opposite Party.

       

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.

              Sh. Vineet Kaushik……Member 

      Dr. Rekha Chaudhary……Member

          

 Argued by: Shri V.K. Kapoor, counsel for the complainant.

                    Shri Vishal Turan, counsel for the OP.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:                     

          

                 The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’) on the averments that complainant is running a small scale industry in the name and style of M/s Shyam Rice Mill and being proprietor has applied the CC loan, term loan under the Government policy of Emergency Scheme in the year October, 2017 from the OP bank for four following bank accounts:-

1. Term loan account bearing no.344577000010
2. CC loan account bearing no.3445261000023
3. Covid loan account bearing no.3445755000051
4. Covid loan account bearing no.3445710000551.

 

The two loan accounts i.e. Term loan account bearing no.344577000010 and CC loan account bearing no.3445261000023, through which the loan had been taken by the complainant from the OP bank since October, 2017 and regularly making the interest as well as principal amount to the OP. OP under the scheme of emergency provided by the Government during Covid-19 period given two covid-19 loans i.e. covid loan account bearing no.3445755000051 and covid loan account bearing no.3445710000551. The OP had given the loan at rate of interest of 9.55% per annum approximately. Complainant availed the loan on lesser interest and enhanced CC limit from ICICI Bank Nissing Branch District Karnal in January, 2021 i.e. rate of interest i.e.8.40% per annum instead of 9.55% per annum and the CC limit also enchanced from Rs.70.50 lacs to Rs.one crore. Not only this, OP bank also imposed some hidden expenses without disclosing to the complainant due to this reason the complainant had taken over the aforesaid accounts from the Canara Bank Nissing to ICICI Bank Nissing in January, 2021. The OP bank had charged taken over charges from the complainant in the following manner:

1. From account no. 3445710000551 amount Rs.6158/-
2. From account no.3445773000010 amount Rs.219474.18
3. From account no.3445755000051 amount Rs.74001.44
4. From account no.3445261000023 amount Rs.17105.08

The total amount is the sum of Rs.3,16,738/- charged by the OP bank illegally and unlawfully at the time of giving No Objection Certificate to the complainant. Under the compelling circumstances, the complainant deposited the amount to the complainant for the smooth run of his business through enhanced CC limits and lesser interest loan. The complainant requested the OP not to charge such a huge amount as a take over charges as he has fully paid the EMI alongwith interest since 2017 and being a small scale industry and covid-19 scheme, OP is not supposed to charge such a huge amount from the complainant, but OP was adamant and received the takeover charges to the tune of Rs.3,16,738/-.  Complainant sent a complaint through email in the month of March, 2021 to the Banking Ombudsman against the OP bank for charging the takeover charges and the same has been received by the Banking Ombudsman by giving receipt of the complaint on 28.03.2021. However, no action has been taken on the said complaint. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OP appeared and filed its written version, raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; locus standi; cause of action; jurisdiction and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that complainant M/s Shyam Rice Mill had been enjoying OCC and TL of Rs.70.50 lakhs and 164.00 lakhs from the OP. The complainant shifted their account to ICICI Bank. The CC limit of the complainant was tenable till 02.06.2020 and the same got extended till the closure of the limits i.e. 12.01.2021. As per bank guidelines and enclosure III of HO CIR 109/2020, OP has collected processing charges for 7 months only. Further, as per the bank guidelines, OP collected takeover charged on the TL facilities extended to the complainant. The takeover charges are 2% of the outstanding liability as pr HO CIR 850/2020. Also no charges were collected in CFITL account 3445710000051 as mentioned in the complaint. It is further pleaded that complainant made a complaint before Banking Ombudsman and the said complaint is pending before concerned Banking Ombudsman. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

4.             Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Shyam Lal Goyal prop. Ex.CW1/A, copy of application dated 06.01.2021 Ex.C1 regarding not to charge the takeover charges, copy of application dated 06.01.2021 Ex.C2 regarding refund of the amount which deducted for insurance, copy of statement of account Ex.C3, copy of complaint to Banking Ombudsman Ex.C4, copy of No Dues Certificate Ex.C5, copy of MSME certificate/acknowledgement Ex.C6 and closed the evidence on 06.01.2022 by suffering separate statement.

5.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP has tendered into evidence affidavit of Amit Kumar, Manager Ex.RW1/A, copy of sanction memorandum Ex.R1, copy of Pre-payment penalty guidelines Ex.R2, copy of processing charge guidelines Ex.R3, copy of statement of account dated 01.01.2015 Ex.R4, copy of statement of account of account no.3445755000051 Ex.R5, copy of statement of account of account no.3445773000010 Ex.R6, copy of statement of account of account no.3445261000023 Ex.R7 and closed the evidence on 25.08.2022 by suffering separate statement.

 6.            We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

7.             Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant is running a small scale industry in the name and style of M/s Shyam Rice Mill and being proprietor has applied the CC loan, term loan under in the year October, 2017 with the OP bank. Complainant availed the loan on lesser interest and enhanced CC limit from ICICI Bank Nissing Branch District Karnal in January, 2021. OP bank imposed some hidden expenses without disclosing to the complainant due to this reason the complainant had taken over the aforesaid accounts from the Canara Bank Nissing to ICICI Bank Nissing in January, 2021. The OP bank had charged taken over charges of Rs.3,16,738/- from the complainant illegally and unlawfully at the time of giving No Objection Certificate to the complainant.  Complainant sent a complaint through email in the month of March, 2021 to the Banking Ombudsman against the OP bank for charging the takeover charges but no action has been taken on the said complaint and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

8.             Per contra, learned counsel for the OP, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that complainant i.e. M/s Shyam Rice Mill had been enjoying OCC and TL of Rs.70.50 lakhs and 164.00 lakhs from the OP. The complainant shifted their account to ICICI Bank. As per bank guidelines, OP has collected processing charges for 7 months only and further as per the bank guidelines, OP collected takeover charged on the TL facilities extended to the complainant. He further argued that complainant made a complaint before Banking Ombudsman and the said complaint is pending before concerned Banking Ombudsman so the present complaint is premature and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

9.             We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

10.           Admittedly, complainant’s firm has availed the loan facility from the OP bank. It is also admitted that the complainant has transferred his loan from OP bank to ICICI Bank. It is also admitted that OP bank has charged the takeover charges to the tune of Rs.3,16,738/- from the complainant.

11.           Before going to the merits of the case, firstly we decide, whether the present complaint is pre-mature or not?

12.           The complainant filed a complaint before Banking Ombudsman against the OP. This fact has been mentioned in Para no.7 of the complaint. Amit Kumar Manager of the OP has tendered his affidavit Ex.RW1/A dated 25.08.2022 wherein it has also been specifically mentioned that complainant filed a complaint before Banking Ombudsman regarding the charging takeover/renewal charges on closure of term loan/CC and other facilities and same is still pending before Banking Ombudsman.

13.           Complainant has already filed the complaint before Banking Ombudsman on 28.03.2021 and lateron he has also filed the present complaint on 28.04.2021. The order of the Banking Ombudsman is still awaiting and complainant has filed the present complaint before passing any order of Banking Ombudsman in short span of time. Hence, in view of the above, at this stage, present complaint is premature and not maintainable being premature and same deserves to be dismissed and same is hereby dismissed. However, if the complainant disagrees with the order of the Banking Ombudsman, he is at liberty to file a fresh complaint before the competent court, on the same cause of action, if he so desires. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:20.07.2023 

                                                        President,

                                                   District Consumer Disputes

                                                   Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

                (Vineet Kaushik)        (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)      

                      Member                        Member