SMT. RAVI SUSHA: PRESIDENT
This complaint has been filed against Divya, Manager Union Bank of India (opposite party), seeking to get an order taking disciplinary against opposite party for her dereliction of duty and for directing opposite party to pay Rs.15,00,000/- towards compensation to the complainant for causing exorbitant loss to him and also Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for causing mental agony.
Complainant’s case in brief are that the complainant has been maintaining account (Current/saving) with Union Bank Thalassery branch. He is an IT product purchased from China having import license. Complainant’s account had no NPA till 2020. Due to covid epidemic entire world has come under lockdown which resulted in slow down of industrial productions and the related import of products from China. Complainant’s business became stagnant and for the 1st time his account turned to be NPA account. Complainant submitted application and requested Manager OP to restructure his account as per then issued RBI circulars of Govt. Of India scheme for covid affected business to avoid NPA. But the manager turns a deaf ear to his requests. Complainant fulfilled all conditions as demanded by the Union Bank Thalassery and also SARAL division, Calicut for restructuring. However, his case was not considered. Contrary complainant received notice from Ernakulam Debt Recovery tribunal – 1 to repay the pending dues without considering his request to restructure NPA account. No intimation whatsoever was given the complainant beforehand from the bank prior to initiate legal proceedings and also blocked his current account without any intimation and as a result his business income channeled to this account also in turn got blocked, complainant alleged deficiency in service on the part of OP.
OP filed version stating that the complainant is an account holder of Union Bank of India, Thalssery branch. The complainant has an overdraft account bearing No. 390305010000343 with the bank in the name of his proprietary firm M/s Willtech communication. The contention that the account had been no NPA till 2020 is not correct. The account became NPA on 31/07/2019 and was upgraded on 26/08/2020 and then again slipped to NPA on 30/11/2019 and upgraded on 29/02/2020. The bank has initiated recovery proceedings under SARFAESI Act twice. The complainant gave a letter to this OP on 15/06/2020 requesting to increase his MSME loan and another letter dated 22/03/2021 for a cash credit loan of thirteen lakh rupees and term loan of ten lakh rupees. There are not for restructuring the loan facility. The complainant applied for Union Credit guarantee Scheme for subordinate Debt (UCGSSD) to MSME’s in August 2020. The application was duly forwarded to the concerned department. After scrutinizing his application it was found that there was some deficiencies and the same was informed to fulfill the requirements and to give supporting documents. Inspite of repeated reminders the Complaintn failed to turn up and produce the required documents like GST returns, audited Balance sheet as he submitted unaudited balance sheet. The complainant was not even having sufficient stock which is needed for his loan of Rs.19.40 lakhs. Apart from the above loan there was a commercial vehicle loan 3903061200080136 which is also NPA and recovery proceedings are initiated. The allegation in the complaint that the complainant approached the OP several time to hand over all the required documents requested by Saral Branch, and no action had been taken to approve the requests to restructure the account would be considered soon etc is false. This OP had approached the debt recovery tribunal after his application of restructuring was rejected as per the guidelines of the bank. The OP never took legal action when the complainant was paying the loan amount regularly but when there was default we have to take legal actions as per Bank guidelines or else the Manger will be held responsible. There was no harassment and deficiency in service on the part of this OP and never caused any mental agony to the complainant. Hence, prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
Complainant has filed his chief-affidavit and documents. He was examined as Pw1 and marked the documents as Ext.A1 to A19. He was examined as Pw1 and marked the documents as Ext.A1 to A19. One more witness, the relative and friend of complainant was also examined on the side of complainant. Both witnesses were subjected to cross-examination for the OP and marked Ext.B1 to B6. OP has filed her chief affidavit and has been examines as Dw1. Ext.B7 to B10 were marked. Dw1 was also cross-examined for the complainant. After that learned counsels of complainant and OP made oral argument and also filed their written argument note.
We have considered the documents submitted from the side of parties, pleadings, evidence adduced and also submissions of both learned counsels.
The facts according to the complainant are that he is a business man and is a customer of OP bank for the last 11 years. He has been complainant has been maintaining account (Current/saving) with Union Bank Thalassery branch. He is an IT product purchased from China having import license. Complainant’s account had no NPA till 2020. Due to covid epidemic entire world has come under lockdown which resulted in slow down of industrial productions and the related import of products from China. Complainant’s business became stagnant and for the 1st time his account turned to be NPA account. Complainant submitted application and requested Manager OP to restructure his account as per then issued RBI circulars of Govt. Of India scheme for covid affected business to avoid NPA. But the manager turns a deaf ear to his requests. Complainant fulfilled all conditions as demanded by the Union Bank Thalassery and also SARAL division, Calicut for restructuring. However, his case was not considered. Contrary complainant received notice from Ernakulam Debt Recovery tribunal – 1 to repay the pending dues without considering his request to restructure NPA account. No intimation whatsoever was given the complainant beforehand from the bank prior to initiate legal proceedings and also blocked his current account without any intimation and as a result his business income channeled to this account also in turn got blocked, complainant alleged deficiency in service on the part of OP.
Complainant has prayed that the bank may be ordered to pay compensation and also take disciplinary action against OP for her dereliction of duty.
On the other hand OP submitted that the complainant’s account was NPA twice on 31/07/2019 and 30/11/2019. In cross examination page 2 he admitted that “2 പ്രാവശ്യം SARFAESI നടപടിയെടുത്തു എന്ന് പറഞ്ഞത് ശരീയാണ് അതിന് debt recover tribunal” കേസ് ഉണ്ട്. The Sec.13(2) makes it clear that SARFAESI action can be taken only in cases an account of borrower is NPA. So his argument that his account was not NPA cannot be believed. Further submitted that to substantiate allegation of filing application on 2020, complainant had to produce the circular and point out that which conditions of the circular is violated by OP. In cross examination page 3 “RBI യുടെ 2 circular നിങ്ങൾ കോടതിയിൽ ഹാജരാക്കിയിട്ടുണ്ടോ, he said ഹാജരാക്കാം. The complainant did not produce those circular. The non production of RBI circular proves that his allegation is not correct as his case is that the RBI circulars were violated by the OP.
The main allegation of the complainant is that his request for restructuring his account was neglected by the OP. OP submitted that he did not submit any proper application for restructuring. He first applied for increase the loan by Ect.lB1 dated 15/06/2020. Banks UCGS SD scheme as per direction of central govt. was made on 31/07/202 to help MSME’s struggling due to Covid 19. Bank acted on B1 letter and gave him letter date 12/03/2021 calling for additional documents and to submit relevant application for the same. Then he submitted B2 letter dated 22/03/2021. The said letter has been duly forwarded by the OP to the SARAL department of RO Kozhikode who is the authority to consider the above application. The OP sent a letter to the complainant dated 12/03/2021, which was marked as Ext.B3 requiring additional documents. He had acknowledged the letter on 13/03/2021(Ext.B4). But the complainant did not submit any document. SARAL department itself directly requested for further documents by letter dated 19/04/2021marked as Ext.B5 The OP by Ext.B6 letter dated 18/08/2021 remained about non production of the documents. Even then he failed to produce the same.
Hence according to OP there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP. The learned counsel of OP submits that from the deposition of Pw1 that 19,00,000/- രൂപയാണ് എെൻറ OD account ൽ ഉള്ളത്. അത് നിലനിർത്താനാണ് ഞാൻ application കൊടുത്തത്. Extra loan ചോദിച്ചില്ല, that shows that he did not submit any proper application for restructuring of the loan.
Further Ext.B3 dated 12/03/2021 shows that OP has informed complainant to submit details in connection to the UGSSD proposal and Ext.B4 acknowledgment card shows the Ext.B3 letter was received by complainant on 13/03/2021. Ext.B5 letter dated 19/04/2021 shows that the complainant has not submitted documents as demanded by OP bank through Ext.B3 letter. It is also mentioned in Ext.B5 that complainant has not sent any viable restructuring proposal. The alleged letter for restructuring the loan is Ext.B1 dated 15/06/2020. On perusal it is seen that there is no prayer for restructuring the loan, Ext.B1 and B2 dated 22/03/2021 are only for enhancing the loan amount. Hence Ext.B1 and B2 cannot be considered as application for restructuring the loan. OP further submitted that OP has not blocked the current account of the complainant as alleged by the complainant. Dw1 also deposed the said fact during examination.
Hence from the evidence, the loan was not restructured due to lack of submitting necessary documents and a proper application to the OP bank by the complainant. Though the complainant alleged that he has submitted all necessary documents as demanded by OP1, for restructuring he has not adduced evidence before us by producing copies of those documents. So the said allegation of complainant cannot be believed.
Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, complainant failed to proved his case and there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.
In the result, complaint failed and hence the same is dismissed. No order as to cost.
Exts.
A1- Registration certificate
A2- Application form of MSMES (Photocopy)
A3- Letter to Regional Manager Calicut for MSMES restructuring.
A4- Letter to lien officer Kannur (photocopy)
A5-Letter to Union Bank Thalassery (Photocopy)
A6- Copy of acknowledgment (subject to proof)
A7- Copy of acknowledgment (subject to proof)
A8- Certificate of conformity (marked with objection)
A9- Commercial invoice (marked with objection)
A10- Application Ministry of Micro small & medium enterprises issued by Govt. of India
A11- Certificate of importer exporter code
A12- Letter of credit for USD 20060
A13-Memorandum of competent authority for sanction of letter
A14- Extended producer responsibility authorization
A15- Letter issued to wiltech communication toward AD Code
A16- Projected trading and profit and loss account.
A17- Statement of account
A18- Form GSTR -13
A19- Resolution frame work 2-0 : Resolution of covid-19
B1- Certified copy of UCGSSD Scheme of UBI
B2-Original letter dated 15/06/2020
B3-Original letter dated 22/03/2021
B4-Office copy of letter dated 12/03/2021
B5-AD
B6-Attested copy of letter dated 19/04/2021(Already marked through complainant)
B7-Attested copy scheme dated 31/07/2020
B8-Attested copy of letter dated 23/09/2021
B9-Letter dated 23/09/2021
B10- True Print out of Order dated 16/09/2022
Pw1- Complainant
Pw2- R K Giridhar-Relative of complainant
Dw1-OP
Sd/ Sd/ Sd/
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
Ravi Susha Molykutty Mathew Sajeesh K.P
(mnp)
/Forward by order/
Assistant Registrar
