Haryana

Karnal

CC/282/2020

Payal Bansal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Canara Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Jagdeep Singh

12 Apr 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No. 282 of 2020

                                                        Date of instt.07.08.2020

                                                        Date of Decision:12.04.2023

 

1.     Payal Bansal, wife of Shri Naveen Bansal resident of house no.130, Sector-14, Urban Estate, Karnal.

 

2.     Bhupinder Singla son of Shri Raj Kumar Singla, resident of house no.188, Sector-16, Urban Estate, Karnal.

                                               …….Complainants.

                                              Versus

 

Canara Bank Sector-7, Urban Estate, Karnal, through its Branch Manager.

                                                                      …..Opposite Party.

 

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Shri Jaswant Singh……President.

              Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…..Member

                   

Argued by: Shri Jagdeep Singh, counsel for complainants.

                   Shri Zorawar Singh, counsel for the OP.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

 

ORDER:   

                

                The complainants have 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 complainants are running the partnership business under the name and style of M/s Aavi Auto, G.T. Road Madanpur, District Karnal, vide partnership deed dated 05.03.2016 and running a dealership of vehicles like three wheelers and spare parts and also sale purchase of old vehicles and maintain a workshop for vehicle service. The Municipal Corporation Karnal issued licence under section 331 of Haryana Municipal Corporation Act 1994 in the name of the firm M/s Aavi Autos (partners Payal Bansal) G.T. Road, Madanpur Road, Karnal. In order to run the business smoothly, the complainants open a cash credit account no.2980261000013 in the name of M/s Aavi Autos, G.T. Road, Madanpur Road, Karnal with the OP. After opening the cash credit limits the complainants running the account regularly. On 11.07.2019, complainants approached the OP and obtained the statement of account in order to see the business transaction, deposits and withdraw. After going through the statement of account, complainants become stunned to see that OPs have charged and recovered the excess amounts without any reasons or grounds. The detail of the excess amount recovered/charged by the OP in the shape of debit interest from the complainants is as under:-

Date                                         Amount

30.06.2018                               50,599/-

31.07.2018                               52,613/-

31.07.2018                               51,000/-

31.08.2018                               52,817/-

31.12.2018                               53,063/-

31.01.2019                               53,858/-

28.02.2019                               48,515/-

31.03.2019                               32,087/-

        Total                               3,94,552/-

        Interest                           2,24,000/-

        illegally charged               1,70,552/-

The OP has charged the excess amount mentioned above from the complainants in the shape of debit interest illegally, unlawfully and against the instruction of the Reserve Bank of India. The complainants have paid the aforesaid amount under threat of the OP and apprehension of sale of property in auction. Thereafter, complainants approached the OPs so many times and asked the OPs regarding the charge/recovery of the aforesaid alleged amount, but OP did not pay any heed to the request of complainants rather threatened the complainants to stop the cash credit limit account of the complainants forcibly and illegally. 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 and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that as per request of complainants dated 30.05.2017, a C.C. Hypothecation loan limit of Rs.35 lakhs has been advanced them i.e. M/s Avi Auto a partnership firm against the collateral security and execution of loading document. No loan limit of Rs.3,50,000/- was advanced to the complainants as alleged. The complainants have become in default in regularizing said loan limit and also did not adhere to get renewed the same after the agreed period of one year and did not turn to regular financial transactions and to submit stock statements of their firm business in time which warranted liability of complainants for the payment of outstanding debts alongwith upto date agreed rate of interest. It is further pleaded that OP calculated agreed rate of interest in said statement of account as agreed with the complainants and as per sanction and loan agreement and undertaking given by the complainants. OP further submitted that M/s Aavi Auto a partnership firm through Shri Bhupender Singla and Mrs.Payal Bansal availed the C.C. Hypothecation loan facility and enjoying said credit limit of Rs.35 lakhs since 30.05.2017 for the period of one year upto 30.05.2018 as agreed by complainants including other partner Shri Bhupinder Singla on behalf of their aforesaid firm. The interest till the period of limitation was charged upto the said period of one year as per complainants undertaking. Further, borrower firms through its aforesaid partners were advised to submit their financial paper stock statement for the renewal of said loan limit on lapse of said one year. Since the day to upto this time complainants avoid to get renewed said loan limit, hence said borrower firm through complainants etc. were charged interest as per bank’s guideline. The OP has not charged any excess interest.  The interest charged on complainants firm’s loan account is legally as per bank’s guidelines and also as per undertaking of complainants in lieu of loan agreement and other loan documents executed by the complainants etc. and if complainants denied to deposit the bank’s due and has become irregular towards the said loan limit then Bank have no other option except to stop complainant’s firm transaction and adopt legal process for the recovery of outstanding loan amount as complainants have become adamant in not deposit the bank’s outstanding loan amount. There is no deficiency in service 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 complainants has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant no.1 Ex.CW1/A, authority letter Ex.C1, copy of licence Ex.C2, copy of partnership deed Ex.C3, copy of bank statement Ex.C4 and closed the evidence on 22.07.2021 by suffering separate statement.

5.             Learned counsel for the OP has tendered into evidence affidavit of Vivek Kumar Katyal, Branch Manager Ex.OPW1, copy of CC sanction letter dated 30.05.2017 Ex.OPW2,  copy of cash credit agreement Ex.OPW3, copy of link letter in respect of enhancement of credit facilities Ex.OPW4, copy of supplement of agreement Ex.OPW5, copy of guarantee agreement Ex.OPW6 and Ex.OPW7, copy of pronote letter Ex.OPW8, copy of statement of account Ex.OPW9 and closed the evidence on 16.11.2022 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 complainants, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that complainants opened a cash credit account in the name of M/s Aavi Autos, G.T. Road, Madanpur Road, Karnal with the OP. The complainants are running the said account regularly. On 11.07.2019, complainants obtained the statement of account in order to see the business transaction, deposits and withdraw and going through the statement of account, complainants know that OPs have charged and recovered the excess amounts without any reasons or grounds. The OP has charged the excess amount from the complainants in the shape of debit interest illegally, unlawfully and against the instruction of the Reserve Bank of India. Complainants approached the OPs so many times and asked about the charge/recovery of the aforesaid alleged amount, but OP did not pay any heed to the request of complainants 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 as per request of complainants dated 30.05.2017, a C.C. Hypothecation loan limit of Rs.35 lakhs has been advanced to the complainant’s firm. No loan limit of Rs.3,50,000/- was advanced to the complainants as alleged. The complainants have become in default in regularizing said loan limit. Complainants did not turn to regular financial transactions and to submit stock statements of their firm business in time. The OP calculated agreed rate of interest in said statement of account as per sanction and loan agreement and undertaking given by the complainants. He further argued that M/s Aavi Auto a partnership firm through Shri Bhupender Singla and Mrs. Payal Bansal availed the C.C. Hypothecation loan facility and enjoying said credit limit of Rs.35 lakhs since 30.05.2017 for the period of one year upto 30.05.2018. The interest till the period of limitation was charged upto the said period of one year as per complainants undertaking. The interest charged on complainants firm’s loan account is legally as per bank’s guidelines and also as per undertaking of complainants and if complainants denied to deposit the bank’s due and has become irregular towards the said loan limit then Bank have no other option except to stop complainant’s firm transaction and adopt legal process for the recovery of outstanding loan amount and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

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

10.           Admittedly, complainants’ firm opened a cash credit account no.2980261000013 in the name of M/s Aavi Autos, G.T. Road, Madanpur Road, Karnal with the OP.

11.           As per the version of the complainants, OP has charged and recovered the excess amount of Rs.1,70,552/- from the period of 30.06.2018 to 31.03.2019 in the shape of debit interest, against the instruction of the Reserve Bank of India. The onus to prove its version was relied upon the complainants but complainants have miserably failed to prove their version by leading any cogent and convincing evidence. The complainants have failed to keep the repayment schedule of the abovesaid loan regular and OP has charged the interest on overdue amounts. To decide the issue whether the OP has charged the excess amount or not, cannot be decided in summary process and without leading detailed evidence and cross examination upon the witnesses by the parties. Hence, the best platform to decide the matter in dispute is the Civil Court where elaborate and detailed evidence can be produced by the parties. In this regard, we are relying upon the observations made in the case titled as Love Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh 2007 (4) CPJ Page 305 (NC) wherein it has been observed by the Hon’ble National Commission that complicated issues involved, not adjudicable summarily-Dismissed with liberty to seek remedy in Civil Court. In case titled as M/s The Bills through its Proprietor Versus PNB reported in 1998 (1) CPC page 150, decided by Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Union Territory, Chandigarh wherein it has been held that complicated issues being involved, the matter needs to be decided Civil Court-Complaint stands dismissed.

12.           Hence without going into other aspect of the case, we dispose of the complaint and complainants are at liberty to approach the Court/Civil Court of competent jurisdiction, if so desired and in that eventuality, the complainants will be entitled to the benefit of Section 14(2) of Limitation Act and the time taken during the pendency of this complaint shall be exempted. No order as to cost. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced:

Dated:12.04.2023                                                                       

                                                                  President,

                                                       District Consumer Disputes

                                                       Redressal Commission, Karnal.

              

                (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

                         Member