Haryana

Karnal

CC/715/2019

Hardeep Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Indusind Bank Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Parshant Pahwa

13 Jun 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                       Complaint No. 715 of 2019

                                                        Date of instt.17.10.2019

                                                        Date of Decision:13.06.2022

 

Hardeep Singh aged about 56 years son of Santokh Singh, resident of village Newal Tehsil and District Karnal.

 

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

Indusind Bank Ltd. Branch at Karnal through its Branch Manager.

 

                                                                      …..Opposite Party.

 

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and after amendment Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…….Member

                   

 Argued by: Shri Parshant Pahwa, counsel for the complainant.

                   Shri Suraj Kanwar, counsel for the opposite party.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

 

ORDER:   

                

                   The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as after amendment under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’) on the averments that complainant is agriculturist by profession. The complainant was having a KCC limit account with the OP, vide his account no.753000015931. The said account was opened in the year 2016 and KCC limit of Rs.18 lakhs was sanctioned by the OP. In the year 2017 same was increased to Rs.19 lakhs. In the year 2018 the bank has renewed the KCC limit of the complainant from 19 lakhs to Rs.22 lakhs. The complainant has closed his accounts, but OP on 16.08.2019 has charged Rs.88000/- as foreclosure charges from the complainant. The charging of foreclosure charges of Rs.22 lakhs are totally wrong and denied because the KCC limit is running since 2016 and same used to be renewed after harvesting of each crop i.e. half yearly. Charging of the aforesaid amount is illegal and unlawful manner. Hence, the complainant is entitled for refund of Rs.88000/- from the OP as KCC limit account cannot be stated to be fore closed. Complainant requested the OP several times for refund the abovesaid amount but OP did not pay any heed to the request of complainant and lingered the matter on one pretext or the other and lastly refused to refund the same. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OP appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; jurisdiction; cause of action and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that complainant requested for commercial KCC loan. Bank sanctioned loan vide Sanction Letter no.KCC-0000003059 dated 01.02.2016 for Rs.19 lakhs. The loan was enhanced vide KCC-0000014563 dated 06.08.2018 to Rs.25 lakhs. Borrower as well as co borrower namely Mr. Hardeep Singh and Mr. Gurvinder Singh son of Mr. Hardeep Singh duly accepted all terms and conditions for availing the loan facility amounting to Rs.25 lakhs and executed security documents in favour of Bank. Complainant closed his CC & TL facilities in August, 2019 on which OP  charged Rs.88000/- as Foreclosure Charges. Same is mentioned in sanction letter dated 06.08.2018 condition no.8 which is duly accepted by the complainant.

CIF ID     Account no.         Name    Scheme       Sanction   Sanction     Open      Close

                                                                   Limit         Date          Date       Date

 

33036358   721000038090     Hardeep LA721       300000      06.08.18   13.08.18 16.08.18

                                          Singh

33036358   753000015931     Hardeep OD753   22,00,000    01.02.16   11.02.16 17.08.19

                                          Singh

 

          Terms and conditions clause no.8 read as under:-

 

8.     Pre payment              4% on the sanction limit, if facilities are

Charges                    closed before 3 years from the first    disbursement

 

Complainant got his loan closed on 17.8.2019 and accordingly in line to duly signed terms and conditions of the sanction letter dated 06.08.2018 OP bank charged Rs.88,000/- as foreclosure charges. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

4.             Learned counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of sanctioned letter Ex.C1, copy of enhancement of loan facility Ex.C2, copy of account statement Ex.C3, account ledger enquiry Ex.C4 and closed the evidence on 21.12.2020 by suffering separate statement.

5.             On the other hand, learned counsel for OP has tendered into evidence affidavit of Gagan Bedi Branch Manager Ex.OP1/A, sanctioned letter Ex.OP1 and closed the evidence on 04.03.2022 by suffering separate statement.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

7.             Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of complaint, has vehemently argued that the complainant was having a KCC limit account with the OP. The said account was opened in the year 2016 and KCC limit of Rs.18 lakhs was sanctioned by the OP. In the year 2017 same was increased to Rs.19 lakhs. In the year 2018 the bank has renewed the KCC limit of the complainant from 19 lakhs to Rs.22 lakhs. The complainant has closed his accounts, but on 16.08.2019 OP has charged Rs.88000/- as foreclosure charges from the complainant. The charging of foreclosure charges of Rs.22 lakhs are totally wrong and denied because the KCC limit is running since 2016 and same used to be renewed after harvesting of each crop i.e. half yearly. Hence, the complainant is entitled for refund of Rs.88000/- from the OP. Complainant requested the OP several times for refund the abovesaid amount but OP did not pay any heed to the request of complainant and lingered the matter on one pretext or the other and lastly refused to refund the same. Hence, prayed for allowing the complaint.

8.             Learned counsel for OP, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that Bank sanctioned a loan  dated 01.02.2016 for Rs.19 lakhs to the complainant. The loan was enhanced to Rs.25 lakhs. Complainant closed his CC & TL facilities in August, 2019 on which OP a charged Rs.88000/- as Foreclosure Charges and same is mentioned in sanction letter dated 06.08.2018 condition no.8 which is duly accepted by the complainant. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

9.             Admittedly, OP has sanctioned KCC loan to the tune of Rs.19 lakhs on the request of complainant on 01.02.2016. It is also admitted that the loan limit was enhanced on 06.08.2018 to the tune of Rs.25 lakhs. It is also admitted that complainant got his loan closed on 18.08.2019. It is also admitted that OP had charged Rs.88000/- as foreclosure charges.

10.           Now the question arises before us for consideration whether the OP has rightly charged Rs.88000/- as foreclosure charges or not?

11.           As per the version of the OP, the abovesaid charges has been charged by the OP as per terms and conditions in clause 8 of sanction letter Ex.C2/OP1. As per the above clause, OP can charge 4% on sanctioned limit if facilities are closed before three years from the first disbursement date.

12.           It is evident from the account statement Ex.C3, the loan amount was disbursed in favour of complainant on 11.02.2016 and complainant got his loan closed on 18.08.2019 i.e. after expiry of more than three and half years. But in the present case the decision taken by the OP for charging the foreclosure charges is contrary to the clause 8 of sanctioned letter, which is not justified in the eyes of law. Hence, we are of the considered view that the act of the OP while charging the foreclosure charges amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. In view of the above, complainant is entitled to get refund of Rs.88000/-alongwith interest, compensation for harassment and litigation expenses.

13.           Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OP to refund the amount of Rs.88000/- to the complainant with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of closing the loan i.e. 18.08.2019 till its realization. We further direct the OPs to pay Rs.20,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by her and Rs.5500/- for the litigation expense. This order shall be complied within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Dated: 13.06.2022

 

                                                                President,

                                                      District Consumer Disputes

                                                      Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

 

            (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary) 

                   Member