Tamil Nadu
South Chennai
245/2011
S.Venkataraman - Complainant(s)
Versus
City Union Bank Ltd - Opp.Party(s)
S.Vel Murugan
20 Oct 2022
ORDER
Date of Complaint Filed : 06.09.2011
Date of Reservation : 21.09.2022
Date of Order : 20.10.2022
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.
PRESENT: TMT. B. JIJAA, M.L., : PRESIDENT
THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L., : MEMBER I
THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc., MBA., : MEMBER II
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 245/2011
THURSDAY, THE 20th DAY OF OCTOBER 2022
S.Venkataraman,
S/o. Late R. Sundaram,
Residing at New No.36,
Jubilee Road,
West Mambalam,
Chennai – 600104. … Complainant
-Vs-
City union Bank Ltd
Rep. by its Manager
#48, Mahalakshmi Street
T.Nagar, Chennai - 600 017. ... Opposite Party
******
Counsel for the Complainant : M/s. VelMurugan
Counsel for the Opposite Party : M/s. R. Sivaraman
On perusal of records, we delivered the following:
ORDER
Pronounced by Member-I, Thiru.T.R.Sivakumhar, B.A., B.L.,
1. The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and prays to pay a sum of Rs.17,97,500/- being hiring charges and to pay a sum of Rs.1,97,725/- being the interest for 11 months @12% p.a from 11th May 2010 till 11th April 2011on the amount of Rs.17,97,500/- and future interest @12% p.a on the principal amount of Rs.17,97,500/- till realisation of the amount.
2. The averments of Complaint in brief are as follows:-
The Complainant is an account holder having S.B. Account and Fixed Deposits in the Respondent Bank. Taking into account his credibility and experience, the senior officials of the Respondent Bank expressed inclusion his name in their Panel and to hire his services as and when needed. He is a senior professional of 47 years of service in the Bar. As the auditing of the Respondent Bank was ahead, to scrutinize the loan papers of the various borrowers and issue Legal Enforceability Certificate, he was hired by the Respondent for two days viz., 8th and 9thMay, 2010. He fixed his trip for abroad for 11th May,2010, nevertheless accepted the hiring and scrutinized 40 documents and issued Legal Enforceability Certificates.The Central Office of the Respondent Bank has issued a Circular C.O./ Cir. 28843 / 2001-02 dated 22.01.2002 to the Assistant General Manager / The Manager, All Branches in the payment of hiring charges for professionals in the matter of Legal Enforceability of documents for the advances of Rs.10 lakhs and above. For the services rendered the fees structure will be at the rate of Rs.0.25% onthe amount advanced, but a minimum of Rs.250.00 and maximum of Rs.500.00 per borrower. The Circular is clear to notify that above Rs. 10 lakhs of advances, Rs.0.25% on the amount advanced and if it is below Rs.10 lakhs, it will be a minimum of Rs.250.00 and a maximum of Rs.500.00. He was then hired by the Incharge of the Loan Advancing Section for the issuance of Legal Enforceability Certificates in order to facilitate smooth auditing for the Respondent Bank. Later, the said incharge was transferred to the Foreign Exchange Section of the Bank. He assured him that he has instructed Ms.Vagheeswari to credit the appropriate hiring fees into his S.B. Account by 11th May, 2010 and also furnish Xerox copies of the Legal Enforceability Certificates. It was informed to the said Inchargethat he had noted down 33 borrowers' name and the seven other borrowers' name could not be noted as he was in a hurry to prepare himself for U.S. trip. Then he left for USA, spending five months time and returned to India on 22nd September, 2010 and contacted Ms.Vagheeswari who informed the complainant that a sum of Rs. 16,500/-was credited for 33 borrowers Rs.500/- per borrower and for the remaining 7 borrowers, she said she will attend to it in due course. But when the Statement of Account was verified, it revealed two payments of Rs.6,500/- and Rs.9,500/- both on 30th November, 2010 under the head"Legal Charges for various accounts" totaling Rs.16,000/- only. In respect of the Settlement of fees, he had sent e-mails to the Respondent Bank and received replies from the Respondent Bank. In the meantime, in between, the Respondent's staff Mr.Murali and Mr.Kalyanaraman sought his appointment and met him. He apprised them of the responsibility involved in the matter of issuing the Legal Enforceability Certificates and the Respondent should render the services to the beneficiary Complainant without any deficiency in the settlement of hiring charges at the rate of Rs.0.25% in accordance with the Central Office Bank's Circular for the advances of above Rs.10 lakhs. After the above, the Respondent Bank by its letter dated 14.02.2011 enclosed 27 borrowers Legal Enforceability Certificates copies assuring the remaining LECS will be sent at the earliest. By the letter dated 21-02-2011, the Respondent Bank enclosed 6 more LEC copies of 6 borrowers totalling 33 borrowers, he compared the lists of the Respondent with that of his and indicated the left out of 7 borrowers in the mail dated 23-02-2011. But the LECS are yet to come. The Complainant thus secured the 40 name of the borrowers and each one of them have been advanced more than Rs.10 lakhs. The Respondent had deliberately failed and neglected to settle the hiring charges in accordance with the Circular referred supra. On the other hand erratically credited a sum of Rs.16,000/- towards hiring charges. This proves per se deficiency of service of the Respondent in the matter of settlement of hiring charges. The total loan amount advanced is Rs.72,54,00,00/- and the hiring charges works out to Rs.18,13,500/- as per the Circular referred supra. The hiring charges ought to have been settled by 11thMay, 2010. The services rendered and the treatment by the Respondent Bank caused him injury to mind, depression, loss of health and demeanor of prestige on account of the “negligence and deficiency in service" under the Consumer Protection Act. He issued a legal notice by professional courier on 01-03-2011 to the Respondent Bank enclosing therein the tabulation chart / List of borrowers LECS. The Complainant claimed the hiring charges of Rs.18,13,500/- plus interest @ Rs.12% p.a. from 11th May, 2011 till it is settled Less the amount of Rs. 16,000/- paid. The Respondent received the Notice but failed and neglected to act and respond and hence, the Complainant is approaching this Hon'ble Forum.
3. Written Version filed by the Opposite Parties in brief are as follows:-
The Opposite Party submitted that the complainant is an Advocate by profession and he is in the panel of Lawyers of the Respondent Bank. They had engaged the services of complainant to issue legal enforceability certificates in respect of various borrowers who had availed credit facility with the respondent bank. To legally scrutinize various accounts of the borrowers and the loan papers they had taken a policy decision to get legal enforceability certificate from any one of their panel Lawyers. That has been culminated into a Circular being issued by the Head office of the Respondent Bank on 22.01.2008. The Circular was circulated to all the Branches including their branch. In pursuant to the said Circular they approached the complainant to issue a legal enforceability certificate in respect of 32 borrowers. The averment in the complaint that the complainant has scrutinized 40 documents is false and put the complainant to strict proof of the same. It was true that their Central Office had issued a Circular dated 22.01.2008 (Mentioned as 2022) with regard to the Legal Enforceability Certificate of the documents for advance amount of Rs. 10 Lakhs and above. On going through the aforesaid Circular the Fees structure is regulated as, "For the services rendered by the advocate, the fee structure will be at the rate of Rs. 0.25% on the amount advanced, but a minimum of Rs. 250.00 and maximum of Rs. 500.00 per borrower."It was absolutely clear that the Circular only provides fees structure for a maximum of Rs.500/- irrespective of the amounts advanced to the borrowers. Hence as per the Circular this respondent had calculated the total number of Legal Enforceability Certificate being issued by the complainant which according to the respondent was 32 and a sum of Rs.500/- being the maximum rate was paid to the Complainant. Hence there cannot be any deficiency of service being rendered by them to the complainant. They were not aware of the conversation with their staff and the complainant has to prove the same. The complainant himself has admitted that total sum of Rs.16,000/- was paid. The complainant has given Legal Enforceability Certificate only with respect to 30 documents and as per the Circular a sum of Rs.500/- per borrower has been paid which comes to Rs.16,000/-. Hence the amount had been correctly credited into SB Account of the complainant. The complainant has no right in saying that they should pay a decent Fees. In fact in accordance with the Circular alone they had paid the Fees. If the contention of the complainant was accepted then the Bank who is scrutinizing the documents will get more amount than the borrower himself. In fact the complainant is not the only person whom has been engaged by them, there were several Advocates who have been engaged to give Legal Enforceability Certificates. The Respondent Bank had paid only Rs.500/- as a maximum fee for rendering Legal Enforceability Certificate per borrower to other professionals. The Complainant is not a Consumer and will not come under the purview of Consumer Protection Act, as he had rendered services for commercial basis and not for personal use. There were no dues to the Complainant and there was no gross deficiency of service and hence they were not liable to pay any amount, in fact they had suffered for loss of reputation on filing of this complaint by the Complainant. Hence the Complaint is to be dismissed.
4. The Complainant submitted his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Complainant, documents were marked as Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-44. The Opposite Party submitted their Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Opposite Party, no documents were marked.
Points for Consideration
1. Whether the Complainant is a Consumer as defined under Section 2 (1) (d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986?
2. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?
3. Whether the Complainant is entitled for reliefs claimed?
4. To what other reliefs the Complainant is entitled to?
Point No.1:-
It is an undisputed fact that the services of the Complainant was hired by the Opposite Party to scrutinize the legal documents and to issue Legal Enforceability Certificate in respect of various borrowers who availed credit facility with the Opposite Party’s Bank.
It is also not in dispute that a Circular dated 22.01.2002 was issued by the Central Office of the Opposite Party to all their branches with regard to the Fee structure to be paid to their Advocates in issuing legal enforceability certificate on documents for the advances of Rs.10 Lakhs and above.
The disputed facts of the Complainant are that he had scrutinized 40 legal documents and he had noted down only the names of 33 borrowers and had not noted names of the remaining 7 borrowers and the same was informed to the then In-charge of the Opposite Party Bank, who had engaged him and hired his services on 08.05.2010 and 09.05.2010. After his return from USA on 22.09.2010 he had followed with the Opposite Party for payment of his professional fees for the said Legal Enforceability certificates issued, it was informed to him that a sum of Rs.16,500/- has been credited to his bank account, but the same was not found to be credited and only on 30.10.2010 a sum of Rs.16,000/- has been credited to his bank account, in spite of his repeated follow up with the Opposite Party. Neither the amount of Rs.16,000/-nor of Rs.16,500/- was acceptable by him as it was agreed to him that fees would be paid at 0.25% on the advanced amount and hence he is entitled for fees at the said rate and not at the maximum of Rs.500/- per borrower.
The Contention of the Opposite Party in this regard was that they had paid the fees as per the Circular dated 22.01.2002 at the maximum of Rs.500/- per borrower and as the Complainant had issued Legal Enforceability certificates for 32 borrowers and not as alleged as 40 borrowers by the Complainant, they had credited a sum of Rs.16,000/- at maximum of Rs.500/- per borrower, as per the said Circular. Since the amount has been settled in full, there were no dues to the Complainant and they were not liable to pay any amount to the Complainant and there was no deficiency in service on their part as alleged by the Complainant. Further contended that the Complainant is not a Consumer and does not fall under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, as he had rendered services on commercial basis and not for personal use.
On careful reading of the Complaint as well as exhibits filed in support of the Complaint, by the Complainant and the Written version filed by the Opposite Party, it is an admitted fact the services of the Complainant was hired by the Opposite Party to issue Legal Enforceability Certificates to the Borrowers availing loan with the Opposite Party Bank. Hence it would be appropriate to quote the definition of Consumer as defined under Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986;
Section 2 (1) (d) :Consumer means any person who-
(i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or
(ii) hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who ‘hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purposes;
From the above definition it is clear that only a person who hires or avails services for a consideration either paid in full or partly paid or partly promised and further a beneficiary is a person who is other than the person who hires or avails of such services with approval of the person who had originally availed the services and a person who avails services for any commercial purpose is not a consumer.
The Orders of Hon’ble Sate Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, reported in 1991 (1) CPJ 40 (NC),Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, reported in 1991 (1) CPJ 40, Hon’ble Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madras, reported in II (1993) CPJ 652,Hon’ble Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bombay, reported in II (1993) CPJ 1071, has been relied upon by the Complainant, would not apply to the case in hand.
In the instant case, the Complainant had neither hired nor availed any services from the Opposite Party Bank, but instead the services of the Complainant was hired and availed for consideration for issuing Legal Enforceability Certificate by the Opposite Party Bank. Hence we hold that the Complainant is not a Consumer and therefore, we are of the considered view that the Complaint filed by the Complainant does not fall under the Purview of Consumer Protection Act. Accordingly Point No.1 is answered.
Point No.2:-
From the Perusal of Ex.A-1 Circular dated 22.01.2002, wherein it was mentioned that “For the services rendered by the advocate, the Fee structure will be at the rate of Rs.0.25% on the amount advanced, but a minimum of Rs.250.00 and maximum of Rs.500.00 per borrower.” The contention of the Complainant was that he has to be paid at 0.25% on the amount advanced to the borrowers and the fixation of fees at Maximum of Rs.500.00/- is not correct. The Contention of the Opposite Party in this regard was that fees on Rs.10 Lakhs and above was fixed at minimum amount of Rs.250.00 and at maximum amount of Rs.500.00. On careful perusal of the said circular, it is clear on reading the entire sentence that the Advocate Fees on Rs.10 Lakhs and above was fixed to a Minimum of Rs.250/- and a Maximum of Rs.500/- per borrower and not as interpreted by the Complainant by quoting the first portion of the Fee structure alone as “For the services rendered by the advocate, the Fee structure will be at the rate of Rs.0.25% on the amount advanced” hence he was entitled for fees at 0.25% on the amount advanced, when it is read with the remaining sentence “but a minimum of Rs.250.00 and maximum of Rs.500.00 per borrower”, it would be clear that the maximum fees on Rs.10 Lakhs and above was fixed at Rs.500/-. Hence the Complainant is entitled for Maximum sum of Rs.500/-, as per Ex.A-1.
The Complainant had claimed that he had issued 40 Legal Enforceability Certificates, as the Complainant had marked Ex.A-12 to Ex.A-44 being 33 numbers of Legal Enforceability Certificates issued to various borrowers and that were produced by the Opposite Party to the Complainant, and 7 other certificates had not been issued by the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party in this regard had contended that only in respect of 32 borrowers they had approached the Complainant and the other 8 certificates alleged to have been issued by the Complainant were with repetition and no legal enforceability certificate was taken by them. Hence for 32 Legal enforceability Certificate issued by the Complainant a sum of Rs.16,000/- at maximum fees of Rs.500/- per certificate, was credited to Complainant’s Bank account. It is important to note from Ex.4 reply mail dated 08.01.2011 sent by the Opposite Party to the Complainant, wherein the Opposite Party had mentioned as permitted they had paid at Rs.500/- for 33 documents and the same was not denied in their proof affidavit or in their written arguments and further in spite of the order passed by this Commission on 01.06.2015 in CMP No.257 of 2012 in the above complaint, the Opposite Party had not produced the copy of the extract of account books maintained by them for payment of charges towards legal scrutiny fees and legal enforceability fees in respect of the complaint mentioned loans of the borrowers with duly certified by the Concerned Manager of the Opposite Party Bank, the same was not produced before this Commission, to prove their stand that only 32 legal enforceability certificate was issued by the Complainant as against the claim of 40 legal enforceability certificate issued to the Opposite Party, by the Complainant, hence adverse inference to be drawn against the Opposite Party and the Complainant is entitled to claim fees for 40 documents, as he has been paid a sum of Rs.16,000/- for 32 documents, the Complainant is entitled to claim for the remaining 8 documents at Rs.500/- per document from the Opposite Party.
As it is discussed in Point No.1 that the Complainant is not a Consumer, we hold that the above issues discussed does not constitute a Consumer dispute, only the Civil Court has jurisdiction to try the same and therefore, we are of the considered view that the complaint filed by the Complainant does not fall under the purview of Consumer Protection Act and the same is not maintainable before this Commission. The Complainant is at liberty to approach the Civil Court for the remedy claimed in the complaint. Accordingly Point No.2 is answered.
Point Nos.3 and 4:-
As discussed and decided Point Nos.1 and 2 against the Complainant, the Complainant is entitled for reliefs claimed in the Complaint and also not entitled for any other relief/s.
In the result the Complaint is dismissed. No costs.
Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on 20th of October 2022.
S. NANDAGOPALAN T.R. SIVAKUMHAR B.JIJAA
MEMBER II MEMBER I PRESIDENT
List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:-
Ex.A1 | 22.01.2002 | Circular of the Respondent Bank from Central Office |
Ex.A2 | 13-12-2010 | Email by Complainant to the Respondent with attachment. |
Ex.A3 | 06-01-2011 | Email by the Complainant to the Respondent |
Ex.A4 | 08-01-2011 | Email from Respondent to the Complainant |
Ex.A5 | 17-01-2011 | Email by the Complainant to the Respondent |
Ex.A6 | 14-02-2011 | Letter from Respondent Bank regarding 27 LECS to the Complainant. |
Ex.A7 | 21-02-2011 | Letter from Respondent Bank regarding 6 LECS to the Complainant |
Ex.A8 | 23-02-2011 | List of 7 borrowers furnished by the Complainant to the Respondent Bank |
Ex.A9 | 01-03-2011 | Legal Notice with Tabulation Chart by the Complainant to the Respondent. |
Ex.A10 | 04.03.2011 | Professional Courier’s Slip No,57857658 |
Ex.A11 | 11-03-2011 | Account Statement from 01.04.2010 to 11-03-2011 |
Ex.A12 | - | Pothys-Legal Enforceability Certificate |
Ex.A13 | - | Pothy’sMatchig-Legal Enforceability Certificate |
Ex.A14 | - | Pothy’sMatchig-Legal Enforceability Certificate |
Ex.A15 | - | Pothy’s Textiles-Legal Enforceability Certificate |
Ex.A16 | - | Pothy’s Textiles-Legal Enforceability Certificate |
Ex.A17 | - | Pothy’s Clothing Pvt Ltd-Legal Enforceability Certificate |
Ex.A18 | - | Pothy’s Clothing Pvt Ltd-Legal Enforceability Certificate |
Ex.A-19 | - | Pothy’s Textiles-Legal Enforceability Certificate |
Ex.A20 | - | Pothy’s Garments, Madurai-Legal Enforceability Certificate |
Ex.A21 | - | Pothy’sTextiles, Madurai-Legal Enforceability Certificate |
Ex.A22 | - | Pothy’s Fabrics, Madurai-Legal Enforceability Certificate |
Ex.A23 | - | Pothy’s Madurai-Legal Enforceability Certificate |
Ex.A24 | - | Pothy’sMoopanar-Legal Enforceability Certificate |
Ex.A25 | - | Pothy’s Fabrics-Legal Enforceability Certificate |
Ex.A26 | - | Pothy’s Fabrics-Legal Enforceability Certificate |
Ex.A27 | - | Geetha Hotels Pvt Ltd-Legal Enforceability Certificate |
Ex.A28 | - | Geetha Hotels Pvt Ltd-Legal Enforceability Certificate |
Ex.A29 | - | Geetha Hotels Pvt Ltd-Legal Enforceability Certificate |
Ex.A30 | - | Geetha Hotels Pvt Ltd-Legal Enforceability Certificate |
Ex.A31 | - | Achariya Bhavan-Legal Enforceability Certificate |
Ex.A32 | - | Maya appliances-Legal Enforceability Certificate |
Ex.A33 | - | Phachal Pharma Ltd-Legal Enforceability Certificate |
Ex.A34 | - | Jain Electricals-Legal Enforceability Certificate |
Ex.A35 | - | Jain Electricals-Legal Enforceability Certificate |
Ex.A36 | - | G-Mart-Legal Enforceability Certificate |
Ex.A37 | - | G-Mart-Legal Enforceability Certificate |
Ex.A38 | - | Sri Lakshmi Bottles-Legal Enforceability Certificate |
Ex.A39 | - | Sri Lakshmi Home appliances-Legal Enforceability Certificate |
Ex.A40 | - | Eswari Bottles-Legal Enforceability Certificate |
Ex.A41 | - | Enginner Estates Madras Pvt Ltd-Legal Enforceability Certificate |
Ex.A42 | - | VinkingImplex (India) -Legal Enforceability Certificate |
Ex.A43 | - | Ramesh Rajan construction Pvt Ltd-Legal Enforceability Certificate |
Ex.A44 | - | V.A. Distributors-Legal Enforceability Certificate |
List of documents filed on the side of the Opposite Party:-
NIL
S. NANDAGOPALAN T.R. SIVAKUMHAR B.JIJAA
MEMBER II MEMBER I PRESIDENT
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
Bhanu Pratap
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)
Bhanu Pratap
Featured RecomendedHighly recommended!
Experties
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Phone Number
7982270319
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.