Punjab

Sangrur

CC/641/2014

Narain and Co. - Complainant(s)

Versus

ING Vysya Bank Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.R.K.Singla

05 May 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                               

 

                                                Complaint No.    641

                                                Instituted on:      03.12.2014

                                                Decided on:       05.05.2015

 

Narain and Company, Ramgariha Gurudwara Road, Dhuri, Tehsil Dhuri, District Sangrur through its proprietor Raksha Rani aged about 56 years wife of Narain Dass, resident of Ramgariha Gurudwara Road, Dhuri, Tehsil Dhuri, District Sangrur.

                                                        ..Complainant

                                        Versus

ING Vysya Bank Limited, Branch Office: Dhuri, Tehsil Dhuri, District Sangrur through its Branch Manager.

                                                        ..Opposite party

 

For the complainant    :       Shri R.K.Singla, Adv.

For OP                      :       Shri N.S.Sahni, Advocate.

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             M/s. Narain and Company through its Proprietor Raksha Rani,  complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite party (referred to as OP in short) on the ground that the complainant firm had a CC account bearing number 808044000558 with the OP having a limit of Rs.40.00 Lacs for the last 3 and 4 years.  It is further stated that thereafter the OP reduced the limit from Rs.40.00 Lacs to Rs.36.00 lacs  without any prior notice to the complainant, which fact the complainant came to know only on 28.7.2014. It is further stated that the OP used to renew the limit annually and annual renewal fee was charged from the complainant. The limit of the complainant was renewed on 30.10.2013 and an amount of Rs.13,764.10 was debited to the account of the complainant.  It is further averred that on 7.2.2014, the OP again debited the renewal charges to the tune of Rs.8988.80 from the account of the complainant. It is further averred that on 29.8.2014 the account of the complainant was debited with an amount of Rs.78,652/- on account of renewal fee and further an amount of Rs.8162.06 were debited to the account of the complainant. Thereafter the complainant closed his account on 29.8.2014.  The complainant approached the OP so many times and requested to explain about the charges, but nothing happened. Thus, alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complainant has prayed that the OP be directed to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.86,814.06 along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of deduction till realisation and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by OP, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint, that the complaint is not maintainable, that the complainant is not a consumer and that the complainant is estopped from filing the present complaint.  On merits, it is admitted that he complainant firm had a CC account with the OP and was having a limit of Rs.40 Lacs. It is further stated that the complainant failed to achieve the projected sales, as such his limit was reduced.  It is further stated that Smt. Raksha Rani is the proprietor of the complainant concern and Shri Narain Dass is the owner of the property and was a guarantor and the account of the complainant was started on 17.10.2011. It is further averred that the complainant stated that the projected sale of the year 2012 will be Rs.2,50,00,000/-, but the complainant achieved the sale of Rs.2,12,00,000/- only. Similarly, the complainant projected the sale for the year as 2,50,00,000/-, but the sale was to the tune of Rs.2,14,00,000/-.   The complainant further stated that projected sale of the year 2014 will be Rs.2,10,00,000/- but the same was only Rs.1,80,00,000/- only. Accordingly, keeping in view the decrease in the sales of the complainant firm, the limit was reduced to Rs.35,00,000/- on 31.1.2014. It is further stated that as per the terms and conditions of the bank, the processing fee/renewal fee was to be charged @ 0.50% of the sanctioned limit plus 12.36% services charges and a sum of Rs.13764.10 was debited from the account of the complainant as renewal fee, but there was some mistake in calculation of the amount, thus further sum of Rs.8988.40 was debited to the account of the complainant and a total sum of Rs.22,752.90 was to be debited.  It is denied again the sum of Rs.78,652/- was debited on account of the renewal fee. In fact, the sum of Rs.78,652/- was debited on account of take over fee.  As per condition number 15, in case of take over of limit, 2% charges are to be charged on sanctioned limit from the borrower.  The sum of Rs.8162.06 was charged as interest for the period the complainant used the limit.  It has been denied that the OP charged any illegal amount from the complainant. It has been admitted that the account of the complainant was closed on 29.8.2014.  Any deficiency in service on the part of the OP has been denied.

 

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-3 copies of statement of account, Ex.C-4 affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP has produced Ex.OP-1 affidavit, Ex.OP-2 copy of power of attorney, Ex.OP-3 copy of credit arrangement letter and closed evidence.

 

4.             We have very carefully perused the pleadings of the parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits dismissal, for these reasons.

 

5.             It is an admitted fact that the complainant was having a C/C limit with the OP and it is also not in dispute that the OP charged the amounts as disputed by the complainant in his complaint.

 

6.             After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the documents placed on record, we find that the main point of controversy in the present complaint is with regard to the debiting of the sum of Rs.86,814.06 from the C/C account of the complainant by the OP bank on account of renewal charges.  Whereas in the reply, OP number 1 has taken the legal objection that since the complainant is the proprietorship concern, so, therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed being a commercial activity and all the charges have been debited as per rules and regulations of the OP/bank.  The version of the complainant is that C/C account of the complainant has been debited with the amount of Rs.78,652/- on account of renewal fee and no such renewal was done by the OP/bank and further a sum of Rs.8162.06 has been debited from the C/C account of the complainant without any explanation to the complainant and the OP/bank had threatened the complainant to close the account. The complainant had to close the account on 29.08.2014.

 

7.             The OP bank has placed on record the document Ex.OP-1 in which it has been stated that since the complainant was not achieving the projected sales target, so the limit was reduced from Rs.40.00 Lacs to Rs.36.00 Lacs and that too as per the undertaking given by the complainant vide document Ex.OP-3 and the charges have been debited as per the document as Ex.OP-3 which has duly been signed by the complainant.  In the written reply, the OP bank has denied that a sum of Rs.78,652/- was charged on account of renewal fee, rather it has been stated that the same amount was charged being the take over fee as per clause 15 of the document Ex.OP-3.

 

8.             We have gone through the document Ex.OP-3, which is a credit arrangement letter dated 6.1.2014 and find that the OP/bank has very clearly mentioned the processing/take over charges and further find that the OP bank has rightly debited the same from the C/C account of the complainant and in the statement of accounts, the same has been mentioned as renewal fee.  Further the OP bank in support of its version that the complainant is a commercial concern and complaint should be dismissed has cited the judgment of Hon Hon’ble National Commission New Delhi delivered in First appeal number 225 of 2008 decided on 5.1.2015 in Oriental Bank of Commerce versus Sushil Gulati, in which the Hon’ble National Commission has held that “admittedly, cash credit facility was obtained by the complainant for running his business. Complainant nowhere in the complaint has mentioned that he was carrying on business by means of self employment for earning his livelihood.  In such circumstances, aforesaid facility falls within the purview of commercial transaction and the complainant does not fall within the purview of consumer’.   As such, we find that since the complainant is having a C/C limit of Rs.40.00 Lacs from the OPs, the case of the complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer as mentioned under section 2(i)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

9.             So, keeping in view of the facts mentioned above and in view of the legal position explained above, we find no merit in the complaint and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, no order as to costs.  A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                May 5, 2015.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                              (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                Member

 

 

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                   Member