Order on Admission

PER : Hon. Ms. PREETHI CHAMIKUTTY, Member

1.                    Present complaint is filed by Complainant against Opposite Party (O.P.) praying for refund of penalties and charges levied by O.P. in both current accounts of Complainant, alongwith interest, legal expenses, compensation and costs. As per averment Complainant is partner of two companies viz. (a) Metal Trading Corporation and (b) Special Metal Industries and he had a pre-existing loan which was taken over by O.P. In year 2018 he obtained facilities from O.P., on 14.6.2018 for amount of Rs. 9.5 crores, wherein three properties two industrial and one residential property was kept as collaterals, which was already with other banks as collaterals. O.P. vide email dt. 28.09.2018 requested for property documents from Complainant, to which Complainant replied that as the forex rates approval is still pending, documents can be given only after approvals were given, to which O.P. replied that they have put it forward for approvals to higher authorities.

2. Complainant states that he consistently enquired with O.P. about forex rates, but they did not respond, nor gave him the forex rates, hence Complainant states there was a delay in submitting NDC. Later on when he submitted the property documents, one of the properties could not be mortgaged as it belonged to deceased mother of Complainant, and was given by Will to his brother, but the Will was not probated and O.P. requested Complainant to get the Will probated, which Complainant considered unnecessary. Subsequently O.P. vide email dt. 28.3.19 informed Complainant that mortgage of aforementioned properties could not take place since legal team of O.P. had raised certain issues about the said property, hence they demanded 110% FDR immediately of the loan amount. Complainant thereafter raised dispute with O.P. about the loan processing fees levied by them, which was wrongly debited from Complainant account, as mortgage of said facility was not possible, renewal was done in less than 9 months, and working capital limits are usually sanctioned for a year and renewal done thereafter.

2. Complainant states that he made requests for refund of charges, but it has fallen on deaf ears. He sent letters for refund of charges of Rs.3,92,762/- for M/s. Special Metal Industries and an amount of Rs.7,29,416/- for Metal Trading Corporation. Further Complainant also approached Banking Ombudsman with two complaints, but no concrete response was received till date, but the complaints were falsely closed. Complainant states that O.P. also attempted to settle the matter by sending Demand Drafts dt. 28.06.2021 to him, but the amount offered is much less than amount debited from his account. Hence Complainant has filed present complaint, for the prayers made therein.

4. Admittedly the dealing between Complainant and O.P. is that of a loan borrower and lender, documents Exhibit B make this fact very clear. Further Complainant has borrowed the facilities against his current account held for (a) Metal Trading Corporation and (b) Special Metal Industries – which are companies, which shows that the transaction being done is for commercial purpose. The loan sanction amount is also Rs. 9.30 crores a substantial amount, and cannot be denied has been done for the purpose of commercial interests and earnings profits. Therefore in our opinion the loan taken by Complainant is in the form of a commercial loan, taken for furtherance of his companies businesses and profits.

5. When taking a loan, it is normal for lending banks to ask for collaterals and levy certain charges for the transaction, which again falls within purview of a borrower and lender, and not of a consumer and service provider. If there have been any delay or penalties charges by O.P., then all of that arise out of the commercial lending transaction between Complainant borrower and O.P. lender, which in our opinion does not come within the purview of Consumer Protection Act. Further Complainant cannot be called a Consumer as he a borrower to loan lent by O.P. Therefore prima facie we opine Complainant has not proven himself to be a Consumer, as laid down under provisions of Consumer Protection Act 2019, and neither can any reliefs be granted by this Commission in excess of its powers defined under Consumer Protection Act 2019. Further the loan transaction in our opinion has been done with an intention to increase profits and would qualify as commercial purpose, which would also not be entitled for any reliefs under Consumer Protection Act 2019.

6. Under the circumstances, we opine that Complainant has failed to prima facie make out a case that falls within provisions of Consumer Protection Act 2019. Hence we pass the following order :

                                                                                  O R D E R

1)   CC/484/2022 is dismissed in limine.

gmp/-