Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/18/216

Samant Bhatia - Complainant(s)

Versus

Indian Overseas Bank - Opp.Party(s)

28 May 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No.216 of 02.04.2018

Date of Decision            :   28.05.2018

 

Samant Bhatia, Proprietor M/s Samant Udyog, C-104, Phase-V, Focal Point, Ludhiana. 

 

….. Complainant

                                                         Versus

1.Indian Overseas Bank, 763, Anna Salai, Chennai-600002, Tamil Nadu, through its Managing Director/Chairman.

2.Indian Overseas Bank, Regional Office: 550/1, Fountain Chowk, College Road, Civil Lines, Ludhiana, through its Regional Manager.

3.Indian Overseas Bank, Sunder Nagar, Ludhiana, through its Branch Manager.

…Opposite parties

 

                   (Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

QUORUM:

 

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

SH.VINOD GULATI, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

 

For complainant            :        Sh.V.K.Gupta, Advocate

 

PER G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.                Complainant as proprietor of M/s Samant Udyog, Ludhiana had been availing credit facilities from Sunder Nagar, Ludhiana branch of Indian Overseas Bank for the last more than 5 years. Last credit sanction advice for regular renewal was issued by the bank on 21.11.2014 and thereafter, complainant submitted the requisite documents with the bank of his concern in October 2015 for renewal of credit facilities. Accounts of the complainant were running regular, but due to fault/error in the system of OP3, wrong entry stood incorporated in the CIBIL records. That fact was admitted by OP3 in its letter dated 24.5.2016. Additional documents even were submitted by the complainant much prior to the expiry period of six months of such submission. Due to delay on the part of OPs, the complainant had to pay 2% additional interest on the credit facilities and as such, complainant approached another bank for grant of credit facilities. As per requirements of other bank namely South Indian Bank Limited, certificate was submitted regarding observance of regular credit facility norms by the complainant and M/s Woolrich Woollen Mills. On account of switching over of account by the concern of the complainant to South Indian Bank Limited, the entire outstanding loan amount of OPs was paid and accounts were closed on 30.9.2016. However, OPs charged illegally an amount of Rs.3,80,738/- in cash credit account, but an amount of Rs.1,33,723.00P in two term loan accounts as closure charges. These charges cannot be claimed by OPs and as such, by pleading deficiency in service on the part of OPs, this complaint filed for seeking refund of paid charges of total amount of Rs.5,14,416.00P along with interest @18% per annum from 30.09.2016 till realization.

2.                Arguments at the admission stage were heard.

3.                Admittedly, complainant availed cash credit limit for M/s Samant Udyog, Ludhiana for the last more than five years as per claim put forth in the complaint itself. Renewal of these cash credit facilities took place w.e.f.April 2012 to 21.11.2014 regularly as per case of complainant. Deliberately the amount of cash credit limit is not disclosed.  If a proprietorship concern avails cash credit limit regularly for more      than five years, then certainly the said limit availed for carrying on commercial activities for expending business. Question of charging hefty amount of Rs.5,14,416.00P as foreclosure charges to arise only, if the loan in crores would have been availed. It is on account of this that deliberately limit of availing loan not disclosed in the complaint. However, it is the case of complainant itself that loan was availed for M/s Samant Udyog, Ludhiana for carrying on business for the last more than five years and as such certainly cash credit facilities were not availed for earning livelihood, but for expanding business regularly.

4.                Even the purpose for availing cash credit facilities not disclosed and documents like loan sanction order or agreement on the basis of which, loan advanced has not been produced. So, virtually the commercial entrepreneur is seeking relief from the Consumer Forum without proving that complainant concern is a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. Rather, the above discussion establishes that services of OPs availed by the complainant for expanding business or for carrying commercial activities and as such, certainly complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

5.            As and when services availed for commercial activities or ventures, then the complainant concerned will not be a consumer in view of law laid down in cases titled as R.K.Handicraft and others vs. M/s Parmanand Ganda Singh & Company and others-II(2015)CPJ-13(N.C.); Lords Wear Pvt. Ltd. vs. Rance Computer Pvt. Ltd.-I(2014)CPJ-332(N.C.); Manu Talwar vs. DPT Ltd-IV(2015)CPJ-396(N.C.); Pharos Solution Pvt. Ltd. and others vs.Tata Motors Ltd., Bombay House-2015(IV)CLT-265(N.C.); Jagrook Nagrik and others vs. Cargo Motors Pvt. Ltd. and others-III(2015)CPJ-1(N.C.); Birla Technologies Limited vs. Neutral Glass and Allied Industries Limited-(2011)1-Supreme Court Cases-525(S.C.) and Nikita Cares vs. Surya Palace IV(2015)CPJ-405(N.C.), and as such, certainly this consumer complaint is not maintainable before this Forum. Further, purchase of truck chassis for expanding the existing transport business also render the purchaser concerned not a consumer, particularly when the purchase not shown to be exclusively for the purpose of earning livelihood by way of self employment as per case titled as Jagrook Nagrik and others vs. Cargo Motors Pvt. Ltd. and others-III(2015)CPJ-1(N.C.). As the business carried out by the complainant by availing cash credit facilities for more than 5 years and as such, virtually complainant availed the said facilities from OP bank for expanding business, but without purpose of earning livelihood by way of self employment. Rather, the said facilities availed for earning profit and as such, complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Being so, remedy available with the complainant is to approach the Civil Court or any other appropriate Forum for Redressal     of grievance.

6.                As a sequel of the above discussion, complaint dismissed at admission stage with the observation that complainant, if advised, may approach the appropriate Court/Forum for Redressal of grievance. Copies of order be supplied to the complainant free of costs as per rules. 

7.                File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                   (Vinod Gulati)                              (G.K. Dhir)

          Member                                          President

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:28.05.2018

Gurpreet Sharma.