Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/18/213

Varinder Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Indian Overseas Bank - Opp.Party(s)

28 May 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No.213 of 02.04.2018

Date of Decision            :   28.05.2018

 

Varinder Kumar Bhatia, Proprietor M/s Woolrich Woollen Mills, 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 claims to be earning livelihood as proprietor of M/s Woolrich Woollen Mills, Ludhiana. Complainant as proprietor of above said concern availed credit facilities from Sunder Nagar, Ludhiana branch of OP bank. That credit facilities availed for the last more than 5 years. Last credit sanction advice for regular renewal was issued by the bank on 21.11.2014, but renewal credit facilities granted since from  April 2012 and thereafter, the said facilities continued to be renewed and enhanced from time to time. In October 2015, the complainant submitted documents for renewal of credit facility, originally sanctioned by the bank, but OP demanded additional documents. Thereafter, officials of OP bank disclosed verbally to the complainant that  the bank has sanctioned short term renewal for six months on the same terms, which had been mentioned in the last sanctioned letter issued on 21.11.2014. Though, complainant had been maintaining the regular account, but due to some system error on the part of OP3, wrong entry incorporated in the CIBIL records, regarding which, admission suffered by OP3 through letter dated 24.5.2016. On expiry of said period of six months, additional documents were submitted by the complainant and he complied with other requirements for extending the credit facilities. That fact was admitted by bank in its letter dated 14.9.2016. However, complainant was kept in dark regarding status of renewal proposal and that act alleged to be a malafide act on the part of OPs. So, complainant approached South Indian Bank Limited for availing credit facilities. The latter mentioned bank offered credit facility on lower rate of interest than being charged     by OPs. In view of these circumstances, complainant switched over to South Indian Bank Limited for availing the cash credit facilities. The complainant closed the accounts on 30.9.2016 with OPs, but they illegally charged an amount of Rs.5,57,764/- in cash credit account, but an amount of Rs.19,783/- in the term loan account as closure charges. By claiming these charges from complainant, OPs adopted an unfair and restrictive trade practice and that is why, this complaint for seeking refund of amount of Rs.5,97,547/- along with interest @18% per annum from 30.09.2016 till its realization. Compensation for mental harassment and agony and litigation expenses also claimed.

2.                Arguments at the admission stage were heard.

3.                Admittedly, complainant availed cash credit limit for M/s Woolrich Woollen Mills, 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 by complainant. 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 expanding business. Question of charging hefty amount of Rs.5,97,547/- 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 Woolrich Woollen Mills, 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, 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.