RESERVED

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                                   UTTAR PRADESH, LUCKNOW

                                    COMPLAINT NO. 124 OF 2018

T. L. Fashion

Through Proprietor Jai Kishan Jhamtani

R/o 49/4, General Ganj, Kanpur Nagar

                                                                                           ...Complainant

                                                           Vs.

1. HDFC Bank, Through Branch Manager

Civil Lines, Kanpur Nagar

2. HDFC Bank, Through Relationship Manager

Abhishek Dwivedi

HDFC Civil Lines, Kanpur.

3. HDFC Bank, Through Territory Head

Manish Sharma

Business Banking, 1^st Floor

Pranay Towers 38 Darbari Lal Sharma Marg

Op. Vidhan Sabha, Hazaratganj

Lucknow-226001, U.P.

4. HDFC Bank

1^st Floor, C.S. No. 6/242

Senapati Bapat Marg,

Lower Panel, Mumbai-400013

                                                                                      ...Opposite Parties

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHTAR HUSAIN KHAN, PRESIDENT

HON’BLE MR. MAHESH CHAND, MEMBER

For the Complainant            :    Sri Pramendra Verma, Advocate.

For the Opposite Party         :                                          

Dated :  14-06-2018

                                                  ORDER

        PER MR. JUSTICE AKHTAR HUSAIN KHAN, PRESIDENT

Complainant T. L. Fashion, through Proprietor Jai Kishan Jhamtani has filed this complaint against opposite parties HDFC Bank, through Branch Manager, Civil Lines, Kanpur Nagar, HDFC Bank, through Relationship Manager Abhishek Dwivedi, HDFC Bank, through Territory Head Manish Sharma, Business Banking, 1^st Floor, Pranay Towers, Hazratganj, Lucknow and HDFC Bank, 1^st Floor, C.S. No.6/242, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Panel,Mumbai under Section-17 of the Consumer

:2:

Protection Act 1986 seeking following reliefs:-

“Wherefore it is most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Forum may kindly be pleased to grant the following reliefs to the complainant:-

1. To allow the complaint against the opposite parties.
2. To direct the opposite party No. to return the amount of Rs.4,58,000/- (Four lac fifty eight thousand only) at 18% interest from the date of deduction, which was illegally deducted by the opposite party no.1
3. To direct the opposite party no.1 to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Two lac only) for the severe mental agony and loss caused to the complainant and his family members
4. To direct opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.12,98,000/- (Twelve lac ninety eight thousand only) which is the business loss suffered during the period of transfer for 70 days when title deeds were with the HDFC Bank and the said account was to be transferred to PNB after fulfilling all the requirement in transferring the said CC Account.
5. To direct the opposite party no.1 to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Fifty thousand only) as a litigation fee.
6. To pass such other order/orders as this Hon’ble District Forum may deem fit under the facts and circumstances of the case.”

In complaint it has been stated that the complainant is sole proprietor of T. L. Fashion situated at 49/52 General Ganj, Kanpur Nagar and is engaged in textile business since 1972 for his livelihood.

In complaint it has been further stated that the complainant was holding cash credit limit account in the bank of opposite party No.01 providing credit facilities to the complainant. The account was being annually renewed for Rs.200 lacs in the name of complainant M/s T. L. Fashion (Borrower) having Account No. 0127290000327.

In complaint it has been stated by the complainant that the complainant has hypothecated stocks, book debts and plant & machinery to the bank and further mortgaged immovable property situated at 7/29 Tilak Nagar, Kanpur measuring area 1131 square meter.

:3:

In complaint it has been stated by the complainant that due to unhealthy services provided by bank of opposite party No.01 the complainant had to face many problems in transacting with the bank. In the meantime team of Punjab National Bank offered cash credit limit to the complainant and promised better services. Therefore, the complainant transferred the cash credit limit account from HDFC Bank to Punjab National Bank on 06-11-2015 and intimation was given to the bank of opposite party No.01 with request to provide NOC and other related documents and to release the title deed to Punjab National Bank but no action was taken by bank of opposite party No.01. Again an intimation letter was sent by complainant to bank of opposite party No.01 by post as well as by email on 15-11-2015. In the meantime the Punjab National Bank transferred Rs.1,96,70,000/- through RTGS in favour of HDFC Bank/opposite party No.01 and opposite party No.01 was intimated through email dated 17-11-2015 with request to close complainant’s cash credit limit account of Rs.200 lacs and to provide to complainant NOC alongwith closure letter, title deed of property mortgaged and other supporting documents in bank custody.

In complaint it has been stated that the entire dues outstanding in the complainant’s cash credit account were cleared on 17-11-2015 but neither no dues certificate was issued by the bank of opposite party no.01; nor other relevant documents were provided by the bank of opposite party No.01. Thereafter the complainant sent letter dated 19-11-2015 authorising Senior Officer of Punjab National Bank to go to bank of opposite party No.01 and to take NOC and other related documents but the bank of opposite party No.01 refused to give NOC and documents to Senior Officer of the Punjab National Bank. Thereafter on 20-11-2015 Sri Manish Sharma and Abhishek Dwivedi opposite parties No. 3 and 2 respectively were contacted by complainant on phone whereupon they threatened complainant to charge 4% penalty on its above cash credit account and ultimately on 21-01-2016 opposite party No.01 charged 2% on takeover of cash credit limit and deduced Rs.10,30,500/- from the account of complainant.

In complaint it has been stated that the matter in dispute is of

:4:

Rs.4,58,000/- only.

With the above statements the complainant has filed complaint seeking above reliefs.

The averments made in complaint make it clear that the complainant has filed this complaint for redressal of his grievance arising out of cash credit facility sanctioned by opposite party No.01 to the complainant for commercial purposes. As such the complainant is not a consumer as defined in Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 and the complaint filed by complainant is not maintainable under the Act.

The view expressed above finds support from the following judgments of Hon’ble National Commission.

1. Sathya Sai Agencies V/s Punjab National Bank and others reported in 2016(1) CPR 612(NC).
2. Consumer Case No. 1047 of 2016 Sidhmukh Flexible Packaging Pvt. Ltd. V/s State Bank of India and 2 others.

Further more the cause of action for complaint has arisen out of closure of cash credit facilities obtained by complainant from opposite party No.01 and the limit of said cash credit facility is Rs.200 lacs which is beyond pecuniary jurisdiction of this State Commission.

We have perused following judgment referred by learned Counsel for the complainant.

1. Gulab Industries Pvt. Ltd. V/s Rng Suiting Limited reported in IV(2003) CPJ 147 NC.

In view of discussion made above this judgment is not helpful to complainant.

In view of above complaint is dismissed with liberty to complainant to approach proper court or forum.

Let copy of this order be made available to the parties within 15 days positively as per rules.

( JUSTICE A H KHAN )                             ( MAHESH CHAND )

                PRESIDENT                                                 MEMBER