Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/92/2019

Vijesh Sachdeva - Complainant(s)

Versus

City Union Bank Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Harish Goyal & Sanyan Bhardwaj Adv.

28 Jun 2019

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

 

Appeal No.	:	92 of 2019
Date of Institution	:	13.05.2019
Date of Decision	:	28.06.2019

 

1.  Sh. Vijesh Sachdeva S/o Sh. S. K. Sachdeva, Prop. M/s Sachdeva Electronics, SCO 2415, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh.

2.  M/s Sachdeva Electronics, SCO 2415, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh through its Proprietor Sh. Vijesh Schdeva S/o Sh. S. K. Sachdeva.

…..Appellants/Complainants.

Versus

 

1.  City Union Bank Ltd., Chandigarh, SCO 2433-34, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager, PIN – 160022.

2.  Sumit Tripathi, Branch Manager, City Union Bank Ltd., Chandigarh, SCO 2433-34, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh, PIN – 160022.

...Respondents/Opposite Parties.

 

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986  against  order  dated  02.04.2019 passed by District   Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T. Chandigarh  in Consumer Complaint No.520 of 2018.

 

BEFORE: JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER.

                MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER.

 

Argued by:

 

Sh. Harish Goyal, Advocate for the appellants.

 

PER  RAJESH  K.  ARYA, MEMBER

                In this appeal, the appellants/complainants have impugned order dated 02.04.2019 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (in short ‘the Forum’) vide which, their complaint was dismissed.

2.             At the time of admission hearing on 13.05.2019, Counsel for the appellants/complainants argued that the respondents/opposite parties illegally deduced an amount of Rs.5,25,089/- towards pre-closure charges and further an amount of Rs.1,17,209.80 were charged arbitrarily on account of period based charges. It was argued that as the respondents/opposite parties were charging interest @11% p.a. compounding monthly, the appellants/complainant decided to switch his credit limit to some other bank who was offering cash credit limit @9% to 9.3%. It was further submitted that during the period from 01.04.2017 to 25.06.2018, the respondents/opposite parties illegally charged number of illegal charges, which the appellants/complainants were never liable to pay. It was further argued that an amount of Rs.10,325/- was illegally charged thrice as processing charges on 31.08.2017, 31.10.2017 &  30.12.2017 respectively. It was further submitted that again an amount of Rs.61,950/- were charged as processing fee on 28.03.2018. Counsel next argued that alongwith above charges, the respondents/opposite parties also charged amounts of Rs.9,453/-, Rs.8,330/- & Rs.6501.80 towards Period Based Charges on 30.06.2017, 14.01.2018 & 14.04.2018 respectively. It was also submitted that the Forum has not given any finding on the aspect of charging of above amounts on account of processing fee and Period Based Charges despite arguing at length. It was further said that not only above charges, the respondents/opposite parties, while closing the account, also charged 1% towards pre closure penalty. It was further argued that while dismissing the complaint, the Forum wrongly held that the appellants/complainants availed the limit facility up-to 31.03.2019 and as such, they were liable to pay 2% charges. It was argued that on 07.04.2018 on in April 2018, there was no sanction limit in existence and there was no pre-closure of limit, therefore, there was no question of charging any pre-closure charges. Lastly it was prayed that the relief sought for in the complaint awarded by setting aside the impugned order passed by the Forum.

3.             After hearing the Counsel for the appellants/ complainants, the impugned order and the documents on record, we are of considered opinion, it is not a fit case for admission and the complaint has rightly been dismissed by the Forum vide the order impugned.

4.             Clearly, the appellants/complainants were sanctioned Credit Facility i.e. OSOD (Non D. P. Secured Overdraft) of Rs.3,50,00,000/- for 1 year on 14.07.2014. Again on 13.07.2015 & 29.07.2016, the credit limits of Rs.4,50,00,000/- & Rs.5,25,00,000/- were sanctioned for one year, respectively, in favour of the complainants. While sanctioning these credit limits, the respondents/opposite parties charged processing charges of Rs.39,326/-, Rs.51,300/- and Rs.60,375/- respectively. As rightly observed by the Forum, the aforesaid credit facilities were not forcibly extended to the appellants/complainants but the same were sanctioned to them on their request from time to time. It is also not disputed that the credit facility for the period 14.7.2014 to 31.3.2019 was availed of by the appellants/complainants after being agreed to the terms and conditions applicable thereto.  

5.             Relevant term and condition qua ‘Preclosure’ in the Sanction Letter dated 31.08.2016 (Annexure R-3), vide which the credit limit of the appellants/complainants was extended up 30.11.2016 to the extent of Rs.5,25,00,000/-, reads thus:-

“-In case of preclosure of credit facilities, the borrower must pay 2% of outstanding balance in respect of loans and 2% of sanctioned limits in respect of ODCC/BP limits. (as prescribed by Bank from time to time.”

6.             Not only above, under the heading “Charges”, it was stipulated as under:-

“-The Bank may levy Processing Fee, folio charges, inspection charges, stock audit charges and other incidental expenses at the rates fixed by the Bank from time to time.”

7.             Perusal of aforesaid conditions clearly show that pre-closure charges @2% of the outstanding balance in respect of loans and 2% of sanctioned limits in respect of ODCC/BP limits in sanctions orders dated 31.8.2016 and 7.3.2018, were to be charged from the appellants/ complainants. The Forum has also observed so in its order. Apparently by not laying any challenge to the aforesaid terms and conditions at that point in time, the appellants/complainants accepted the aforesaid terms and conditions. By agreeing to the said conditions, as applicable to the overdraft credit facility sanctioned in favour of the appellants/complainants vide sanction orders, referred to above, the appellants/complainants gave their consent qua deduction of pre-closure charges @2% of the outstanding balance in respect of loans and 2% of sanctioned limits in respect of ODCC/BP limits. However, as a goodwill gesture, keeping in view the request made by the appellants/complainants, the respondents/opposite parties reduced the pre-closure charges to 1%, which was duly agreed and paid by the appellants/complainants voluntarily. Further on 31.03.2018, as is clear from Annexure C-15, there was an outstanding balance of Rs.4,98,52,800.36 in the account of the appellants/complainants and it was after the said date, the loan/credit limit was taken over by some other Bank in April 2018 and as such, the respondents/opposite parties were very much entitled to charge preclosure charges. In our considered opinion, the Forum has rightly held that the appellants/complainants  cannot be permitted to challenge the provisions of sanction order/letter (Annexures R-3 & R-4) at this stage. As regarding charging of Processing Fee and Period Based Charges by the respondents/opposite parties by the appellants/complainants is concerned, it may be stated here that the same were also rightly charged as per the term and conditions applicable to the aforesaid credit limit/sanction letter. Finding no deficiency in rendering service on the part of the respondents/opposite parties, the Forum rightly dismissed the complaint of the appellants/complainants. Accordingly, finding no ground to interfere in the well reasoned order passed by the Forum, this appeal is also liable to be dismissed.

8.             No other point was argued by the Counsel for the appellants/complainants.

9.             For the reasons recorded above, the appeal being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. The impugned order dated 02.04.2019 passed by District Forum – II, U.T., Chandigarh is upheld.

10.           Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.

11.           The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion

Pronounced.

28.06.2019.

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

 

(PADMA PANDEY)

        MEMBER

 

 

(RAJESH  K. ARYA)

MEMBER

Ad