DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BARNALA, PUNJAB.

Complaint Case No : CC/68/2022

Date of Institution : 02.03.2022

Date of Decision : 27.05.2022

1.M/s B.L. Castings, Raikot Road, VPO Amla Singh Wala, Tehsil & District Barnala a partnership firm.

2.Gaurav Goyal son of Ram Krishan Goyal resident of Green Avenue, Barnala partner of M/s B.L. Castings. 

3.Aseem Goyal son of Ram Krishan Goyal resident of Green Avenue, Barnala partner of M/s B.L. Castings. 

4.Sushil Tayal son of Radhey Shyam Tayal resident of H.No. 3416, Sector-71, S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali) partner of M/s B.L. Castings. 

                            …Complainants

Versus

1. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., Pacca College Road, Branch Barnala through its Branch Manager. 

2. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., SCO 116-117, New Leela Bhawan, Patiala through its Manager/Authorized Signatory. 

…Opposite Parties

3. AXIS Bank Ltd., Branch Dhanaula through its Branch Manager.   

                              …Performa Opposite Party

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Present: Sh. Anuj Mohan Advocate counsel for complainant.

Opposite parties No. 1 & 2 exparte.

Sh. Pardeep Kumar Senior Manager for opposite party No. 3.

 

Quorum.-

1. Sh. Ashish Kumar Grover : President

2.Smt. Urmila Kumari : Member

3.Sh. Navdeep Kumar Garg : Member

 

(ORDER BY ASHISH KUMAR GROVER PRESIDENT):

    The complainants have filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 against M/s B.L. Castings and others (in short the opposite parties). 

2. The facts leading to the present complaint are that the complainant firm M/s B.L. Castings is a partnership firm and is carrying the business of M.S. Steel etc., and complainant No. 2 to 4 are the partners of the said firm and pursued the said business for earning their livelihood and the same is registered by Registrar of Firms & Societies, Punjab under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. It is alleged that the complainant firm obtained the cash credit limits/overdraft facilities/term loans from the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 having account numbers i.e. Cash Credit Account No. 8912148049, Term Loan Account No. 4056TL0100000047, Term Loan Account No. 4056TL0100000050, Term Loan Account No. 4056TL0100000044, MSME Term Loan Account No. 4056CL0100000042, Current Account No. 8912147837. The said cash credit limits/overdraft/facilities/term loans were given by the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 to the complainant firm against the pleading of original title deeds/properties and by creating charge upon the said properties. It is further alleged that the complainant firm required some facility from the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 bank, but they denied the said required facility and thereafter the complainant firm moved to Axis Bank Ltd., Branch Dhanaula and shifted his said credit facilities to Axis Bank Ltd., who take over the credit facilities of the complainant firm and opposite party No. 3 remitted the funds to Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., for takeover the said credit facilities and Axis Bank Ltd., had paid the outstanding dues of opposite parties No. 1 & 2 in full and final satisfaction thereof. The amounts were duly received by the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 on 25.10.2021 being full and final outstanding amounts against the above said credit facilities of the complainant firm and opposite parties No. 1 & 2 assured the complainant firm that No Due Certificate and the original title deeds/properties documents will be given to the complainant firm within one month. The outstanding amount against MSME Loan account was paid by the complainant firm from his own funds. It is further alleged that in spite of having received the full payment of the above said credit facilities the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 lingering the matter on one pretext or the other and till date did not release the original title deeds of the immovable properties deposited by the complainant firm with the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 and have also not issued No Due Certificate of the same. The complainant firm has sent so many e-mails to opposite parties No. 1 & 2 for releasing the above said title deeds and issue closing bank account statements of all accounts. The opposite parties No. 1 & 2 further demanded an amount of Rs. 1,44,833.63/- after reversal of penal interest of Rs. 2,40,187/- and the complainant firm had deposited Rs. 1,50,000/- with the opposite parties No. 1 & 2, but inspite of the same they are lingering the matter on one pretext or the other and did not release the original title deeds of the immovable properties deposited by the complainant firm with them and also not issued No Due Certificate and now they demanded with malafide intention an amount of Rs. 8,18,625/- from the complainant firm regarding the subsidy adjustment, however the said subsidy amount was released by the government to the complainant firm and the same was credited in Term Loan Account No. 4056TL0100000050 on 2.7.2021. It is further alleged that the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 have also deducted an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- on account of insurance against the Current Account No. 8912147837 and the complainant firm also requested the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 for reimburse the same, but they have not reimbursed the same till date and not released the title deeds and No Due Certificate to the complainant firm. Due to the same the complainant firm bearing great financial loss and are facing problems in operating the accounts with Axis Bank Ltd. As such the said act of the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 is deficiency in service. Hence, the present complaint is filed for seeking the following reliefs.-

i)The opposite parties No. 1 & 2 may be directed to release the title deeds/property documents and issued No Due Certificate.

ii)Further to pay Rs. 5,00,000/- on account of compensation for mental agony and harassment. 

iii)Further, to pay Rs. 50,000/- as litigation expenses.  

3. Notice was sent to opposite party No. 1 & 2, but they failed to appear and were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 5.5.2022 of this Commission. 

4. The opposite party No. 3 appeared through Sh. Pardeep Kumar Senior Manager and filed written version. In reply the opposite party No. 3 submitted that the Axis Bank Ltd., has takeover the credit facilities of the complainant firm on 23.10.2021 i.e. Demand Over Draft of Rs. 1,47,00,000/- and Over Draft Limit of Rs. 2,40,00,000/-. The answering opposite party has not released the amount of Rs. 78,00,000/- to the complainant firm due to non releasing of original title deeds/property documents. It is further alleged that as soon as the said title deeds/property documents will be released by the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 and the same will be released by opposite party No. 3, the pending sanctioned amount will be released to the complainant firm. As such, there is no deficiency in service on its part and the opposite party No. 3 prayed for the dismissal of present complaint against them. 

5. In order to prove case the complainant firm tendered into evidence evidence affidavit of Aseem Goyal Ex.C-1, copy of retirement cum partnership deed Ex.C-2, copy of FORM C Ex.C-3, copies of title deeds/property documents Ex.C-4, copies of cheques Ex.C-5 to C-8, copy of ledger account books ExC-9 & C-10, copies of E-mails Ex.C-11 to C-18, copy of loan account statement Ex.C-19, copy of notification dated 2.1.2013 Ex.C-20, copy of office Memorandum dated 2.4.2019 Ex.C-21, copy of office Memorandum dated 15.4.2019 Ex.C-22, copy of acknowledgment Ex.C-23, copies of bills Ex.C-24 to Ex.C-30, copy of statement of account Ex.C-31 and closed the evidence. Ld. Counsel for complainant has suffered the statement on 9.5.2022 that I do not want to file any rejoinder against the version of opposite party No. 3. 

6. The opposite party No. 3 tendered into evidence affidavit of Pardeep Kumar Authorized Signatory of Axis Bank Ltd., Ex.O.P3/1, authority letter Ex.O.P3/2 and closed the evidence. 

7. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and Sh. Pardeep Kumar Senior Manager, Axis Bank Ltd, Branch Dhanaula and have gone through the record on the file. 

8. The complainant alleged in the complaint that the complainant firm obtained the cash credit limits/overdraft facilities/term loans from the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 having account numbers i.e. Cash Credit Account No. 8912148049, Term Loan Account No. 4056TL0100000047, Term Loan Account No. 4056TL0100000050, Term Loan Account No. 4056TL0100000044, MSME Term Loan Account No. 4056CL0100000042, Current Account No. 8912147837. The complainant further alleged that complainant firm required some facility from the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 bank, but they denied the said required facility and thereafter the complainant firm moved to Axis Bank Ltd., i.e. opposite party No. 3 and shifted his said credit facilities to Axis Bank Ltd., who take over the credit facilities of the complainant firm and remitted the funds to Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., the opposite parties No. 1 & 2. The opposite party No. 3 had paid the outstanding dues of opposite parties No. 1 & 2 in full and final satisfaction. The details of the Take-over credit facilities and amounts as under:-

A/C No.      DD No.               Amount

8912148049     000569 dt. 19/10/20121 15,18,867/-

8912148049     000570 dt. 19/10/2021 2,39,51,133/-

4056TL0100000050  000568 dt. 19/10/2021 28,89,979/-

4056TL0100000047  000567 dt. 19/10/2021 23,43,629/-

The above said amounts were duly received by the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 on 25.10.2021 and assured the complainant firm that No Due Certificate and the original title deeds/properties documents will be given to the complainant firm within one month. The complainant further alleged that the outstanding amount against MSME Loan account was paid by the complainant firm from his own funds. Thus, the complainant firm had paid the entire outstanding amounts of opposite parties No. 1 & 2 against the above said credit facilities. The complainant alleged that despite the payment the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 have not issued No Due Certificate of the same and also not released the original title deeds/property documents deposited by the complainant with the opposite parties No. 1 & 2. The complainant sent so many Emails to the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 for releasing the above said title deeds and issue No Objection Certificate. The opposite parties No. 1 & 2 with malafide and dishonest intention illegally demanded an amount of Rs. 8,18,625/- from the complainant firm regarding the subsidy adjustment, however the said subsidy amount was released by the Government to the complainant firm and the same was credited in Term Loan Account No. 4056TL0100000050 on 2.7.2021 and the subsidy amount was delayed by the Department about 3 years  and the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 have got no concern with the same. 

9. On the other hand, the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 have not come present and therefore the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 5.5.2022.

10. The opposite party No. 3 filed written version and alleged that the Axis Bank Limited has take over the credit facilities of the complainant firm on 23.10.2021. Rest of the paras are denied as not relates to opposite party No. 3.

11. On the perusal of the file and evidence produced by the complainant it is established that the complainant has taken the credit facilities from the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 and lateron he transferred the account to opposite party No. 3 and the opposite party No. 3 paid the amount to opposite parties No. 1 & 2  and in this regard the complainant has produced the Demand Draft alongwith letters issued by the Axis Bank Limited to the Branch Manager Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited Ex.C-5 to C-8. Ld. Counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant firm has sent various Emails to the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 for releasing the title deeds/property documents and NOC, as the entire loan amount was deposited by the complainant firm. The complainant has received an Email dated 30.12.2021 Ex.C-12 in which the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 mentioned that “We are currently in the process of investigation the matter and shall revert to you at the earliest, but not later than 7 working days”. The complainant again sent Email dated 6.1.2022 Ex.C-13 and again requested for documents. The complainant mentioned in the said Email that we were sent message from your bank to deposit Rs. 1,44,833.63 after reversal of penal interest Rs. 2,40,187/-. We have deposited Rs. 1,50,000/- and requested for releasing the property documents related to this loan. In reply to the said Email the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 sent Email i.e. Ex.C-14 that “This is with reference to your email regarding the concerns raised by you pertaining to the release of property papers and closure of limits “we wish to inform you that we have raised your concern to the concerned department and shall revert to you at the earlies, but not later than 5-7 working days”. The complainant again sent request through Email dated 15.1.2022 and on the same day the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 replied and assured that the documents will be released after formalities. 

12. The complainant has produced the statement of account Ex.C-31 in which it is clearly mentioned that on 5.1.2022 the total outstanding against the complainant firm was Rs. 1,44,833.63 and the complainant firm deposited Rs. 1,50,000/- in the said account as demanded by the opposite parties No. 1 & 2. The opposite parties No. 1 & 2 again sent Email to the complainant firm on 25.1.2022 Ex.C-18 that “we would like to inform you that Rs. 8,18,625/- is pending against subsidy adjustment. You are requested to deposit the amount to process the closure of limits and release of property”.

13. Ld. Counsel for the complainant argued that the subsidy released by the Government to the complainant firm and the same was credited in the term loan account No. 4056TL0100000050 on 2.7.2021. The bank has no concern with the said amount. The Government Department delayed the payment for more than 3 years. The complainant has also produced documents Ex.C-20 to Ex.C-22. It is clearly mentioned in Ex.C-20 that the unit may be allowed to transfer its loan liabilities/account alongwith TDR to only those banks which are nodal agencies or PLIs under any nodal agency so that the progress of the unit may be monitored as per guidelines of the scheme provided functions of the unit alongwith other terms and conditions do not change and the loan liabilities of the unit is continuing. Ld. Counsel for the complainant further argued that the subsidy amount will be remained in the bank for 3 years in the shape of TDR. But as per office Memorandum dated 2.4.2019 Ex.C-21 the TDR should be made for the duration of three years from the date of approval of subsidy by PLI/Bank mentioned in the online application. If, there is any delay in release of subsidy by this office, the three year time duration should be taken from the date of commercial production by the unit after purchasing the said machinery. 

14. The complainant also produced the bills Ex.C-24 to Ex.C-30 of machinery which was purchased by the complainant firm in the year 2013. Ld. Counsel for complainant argued that the complainant has purchased the machinery in the year 2013 and production was started. But the complainant firm had received the subsidy amount on 2.7.2021 as mentioned in the statement of account Ex.C-19. Therefore, as per the instructions of department there is no need to deposit the amount in the shape of TDR for three years duration. Therefore, the demand raised by the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 through Email dated 25.1.2022 regarding subsidy is not adequate. The complainant has produced the statement of account of opposite parties No. 1 & 2 vide which it is established that the complainant has deposited all credits to the opposite parties No. 1 & 2. But the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 failed to release the NOC and original sale deed/property documents to the complainant firm. It is established that the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 have no concern with the subsidy amount as the subsidy was given by the Government Department to the complainant firm and the same is credited in term loan account of the complainant firm. Therefore, there is clear cut unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties No. 1 & 2. 

15. On the other hand, the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 have preferred to remain exparte and failed to file any reply to the present complaint. 

16. In view of the above discussion, the present complaint is partly allowed against the opposite parties No. 1 & 2. The opposite parties No. 1 & 2 are directed to release the title deeds/property documents and No Due Certificate to the complainant firm pertaining to above said accounts. However, the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 can take outstanding amounts if any of the above said accounts before releasing the title deeds/property documents and No Due Certificate to the complainant except subsidy amount. The opposite parties No. 1 & 2 further directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment and Rs.5,500/- on account of litigation expenses to the complainant. Compliance of the order be made within the period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance.  

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:

        27th Day of May, 2022

 

 

            (Ashish Kumar Grover)

            President             

 

 

(Urmila Kumari)

Member

 

(Navdeep Kumar Garg)

Member