Punjab

Sangrur

CC/25/2014

M/S NIRMLA MILK - Complainant(s)

Versus

MANAGER, BANK OF BARODA - Opp.Party(s)

S.S. RATOL

06 May 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                               

 

                                                Complaint No.    25

                                                Instituted on:      09.01.2014

                                                Decided on:       06.05.2015

 

 

M/s.Nirmla Milk and Chilling Center, Village Sohian, Tehsil and Distt. Sangrur through its Prop. Nirmla Devi.

                                                        ..Complainant

                                        Versus

1.     Bank of Baroda, through its Manager, Branch Sangrur, Kaula Park, Sangrur.

2.     Mr. P.K.Goyal, Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda, Branch Kaula Park, Sangrur.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

 

For the complainant    :       Shri S.S.Ratol, Adv.

For opposite parties    :       Shri Sumesh Garg, Advocate.

 

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : K.C.Sharma, Member.

 

1.             M/s. Nirmla Milk and Chilling Centre through its proprietor Smt. Nirmla Devi,  complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant was having one O/D account number 4/79 with the OPs for Rs.75.00 Lacs and the OP was charging interest over this facility, as such the complainant is said to be a consumer of the OPs.

 

2.             It is further averred that to get renewed the above said limit, the complainant along with Mr. Naveen Gupta, Advocate went to the Op and handed over all the documents to it which were required for the purpose.  The above said documents were handed over to the loan officer Mr. Himanshu Sehgal, but the OP number 2 refused to accept the papers and returned the same to the complainant without assigning any reason.  The complainant was never intimated anything after the submission of the documents to the OPs.  Ultimately in July, 2013 the OPs sought the said documents which were already submitted by the complainant to the Ops within two days.   The grievance of the complainant is that the OPs charged the excess processing charges as well as penal interest on the pretext that the limit was not got renewed in March, 2013.  It is further averred that as such the complainant was forced to close his account with the OP on 11.11.2013 due to the unaccommodating and rude behaviour of the OP number 2.  It is further averred that the OPs wrongly and illegally wanted to charge the processing charges upto September, 2014 while the account of the complainant was already closed on 11.11.2013. Similarly, the bank has charged penal interest from march, 2013 to September, 2013 .  It is further averred that the Ops have wrongly and illegally retained the amount of Rs.21,144/- on account of alleged processing charges from 12.11.2013 to 1.9.2014 and the amount of Rs.33,389.67 on account of penal interest from 29.3.2013 to 1.9.2013. It is further averred that the complainant availed the above said facility from the Ops in order to earn his livelihood by way of self employment.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to pay a sum of Rs.54,354/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from 11.11.2013 till its realisation and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.  

 

3.             In reply, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that this Forum has no jurisdiction to decide the present complaint as the complainant is a big unit and number of persons have been employed that the complainant has concealed the material facts from this Forum, as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed. On merits, it is admitted that the Op number 1 sanctioned an over draft limit of Rs.75.00 Lacs in favour of the complainant having account number 4/79 and the OPs have been charging the interest as per rules and regulations of the OPs. It has been denied that the complainant submitted all the required documents for renew/review of the over draft limit facility to Himanshu Sehgal and returned the same without any reason.  It is stated that the above said over draft facility was valid up to 29.3.2013 and due date of renewal of the O/D limit was 29.3.2013 and vide letter dated 15.3.2013 the complainant was intimated to submit audit financial statement, income tax return, CMA data, provisional balance sheet, latest net worth of guarantor and it was further intimated that in case of non submission of documents, 2% penal interest will be required to pay by the complainant to the OP. It is further stated that the Op again intimated the complainant a number of times to get renewed the over draft limit and lastly in the month of  July, 2013 the complainant sent his counsel Shri Naveen Gupta in the bank and on his demand the bank gave letter dated 5.7.2013 and thereafter the complainant submitted the documents to the OP in the month of August, 2013 and on 2.9.2013, the above said OD facility was renewed for the period of one year.  As such, it is stated that the bank has rightly recovered the amount and any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs has been denied. It is further stated that the complainant had closed his account at his own on 11.11.2013.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-5 copies of letters, Ex.C-6 to Ex.C-7 copies of statements, Ex.C-8 copy of reminder letter, Ex.C-9 to Ex.C-13 copies of letters, Ex.C-14 to Ex.C-15 copies of terms and conditions, Ex.C-16 copy of sanction letter,  Ex.C-17 to Ex.C-18 affidavits and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has produced Ex.OPs/1 to Ex.OPs/2 affidavits, Ex.OPs/3 copy of agreement/undertaking, Ex.OPs/4 copy of letter dated 5.7.2013, Ex.OPs/5 copy of letter dated 15.3.2013, Ex.OPs/6 copy of balance sheet and closed evidence.

 

5.             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 dismissal, for these reasons.

 

6.             After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and on the perusal of the documents placed on record, we find that the main point of controversy in the present complaint is with regard to the charging of the processing fee as well as penal interest on the O/D limit of the complainant by the Ops.

 

7.             The version of the OPs is that the due date of the renewal of the O/D limit was 29.03.2013 and the documents/papers of the complainant concerned were sought vide letter dated 15.3.2013 for the renewal of the limit and as the documents for renewal were submitted by the complainant only in the month of August, 2013, so the Ops had charged the penal interest on the O/D account of the complainant as per the agreed terms and conditions vide document Ex.OPs/3 and as the O/D limit was renewed on 2.9.2013 for one year i.e. upto 1.9.2014, so, accordingly the renewal charges have been charged as per the laid down terms and conditions vide document Ex.OPs/3, which has been duly signed by the complainant also.

 

8.             The present complaint case has been remanded back by the Hon’ble Punjab State Commission as the same was dismissed by this Forum on 15.01.2014 on the ground that the complainant concern is engaged in the commercial activities and now the complaint is being decided after hearing the arguments on merits.

 

9.             On the perusal of the documents placed on record, we find that the Ops had demanded the documents for the renewal of the O/D limit for the first time vide letter dated 15.3.2013, a copy of which on record is Ex.OPs/5 and subsequently the papers were demanded on 5.7.2013 as per the document Ex.OPs/4.  But, the complainant has admitted having received only one letter i.e. letter dated 5.7.2013 and has denied having received other letter dated 15.3.2013.

 

10.            It is worth mentioning here that when we go through the contents of the affidavit of Advocate Naveen Gupta, which is on record as Ex.C-17, we find that the deponent has submitted that “deponent along with complainant visited the bank/OP in the month of March, 2013 to get the limit of the complainant renewed. Deponent and complainant submitted all the required documents for the purpose of the renewal of the limit”.  Whereas the version of the complainant is different as the complainant has submitted that ‘documents for the purpose of renewal of limit were never demanded by the bank and the bank never signed any notice or intimation in this regard.’  The complainant has only admitted that in the month of July, 2013 the OPs sought the documents.  From this, it is clear that the version of the complainant and that of the evidence led by him itself contradicts, so it seems that the complainant has received both the letters from the OPs i.e. 15.3.2013 as well as 5.7.2013.

 

11.            Further we have gone through both these letters dated 15.3.2013 as well as 5.7.2013 and find that the OPs had written in the letter dated 15.3.2013 only with regard to the provisional balance sheet as on 28.3.2013, whereas vide document Ex.OPs/5, which is a copy of letter dated 5.7.2013, the Ops had demanded the audited balance sheet as on 31.3.2013.  As such, the contents of both these letters reveals that the Ops must have sought the documents vide both the letters for the renewal of the O/D limit of the complainant.   Moreover, it is also on the part of the complainant to submit the financial statements in time with regard to the availing of the interrupted services from the OP/ bank. 

 

12.            So, in the light of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the complainant has submitted the documents for the renewal of the O/D limit in the month of July, 2013, so accordingly, the OPs after taking the processing time had renewed the limit for one year i.e. 2.9.2013 to 1.9.2014 and  had charged the penal interest for the period for which the complainant did not submit the documents in the light of the document Ex.OPs/3.

 

13.            So, keeping in view of the facts mentioned above, we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and accordingly, we dismiss the complaint.  The parties are left to bear their own costs.  A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                May 6, 2015.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                              (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                Member

 

 

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                   Member