CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)
New Delhi – 110 016
Case No.549/2009
M/S VIKAS UTILITIES PVT. LTD.
F-6, VIKAS APARTMENTS,
34/I, EAST PUNJABI BAGH,
NEW DELHI-110026
THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE
SH. ANIL BHARDWAJ
…………. COMPLAINANT
Vs.
M/S BARCLAYS BANK PLC,
GROUND FLOOR AND 1ST FLOOR,
EROS CORPORATE TOWER, NEHRU PLACE,
NEW DELHI-110019
…………..RESPONDENT
Date of Order:09.01.2019
O R D E R
A.S. Yadav – President
The complainant is a private limited company. The case of the complainant is that OP is a scheduled commercial bank registered in India providing various types of banking facilities. OP through its officials approached the complainant and offered them the facility of Letter of Credit for Rs.1,30,00,000/- and vide letter dated 12.02.2008 sacntioned the above said facility and demanded Rs.2,60,000/- as processing charges for granting the above mentioned facility. Alongwith the sanction letter OP bank has also attached the terms and conditions. The malafide intention of OP bank is apparent from the fact that rather than asking to fulfil the terms and conditions prior to sanction of the facility, OP bank is first sanctioning the facility to get Rs.2,60,000/- and thereafter before the disbursement, OP bank is asking to complete the formalities for disbursement of the credit facility. In spite of complainant fulfilling all the requirements of the bank, the officials of bank with malafide intention were delaying the disbursement of the amount on one pretext or the other. Aggrieved by the conduct of OP, the complainant vide letter dated 31.05.2008 asked OP bank to refund the amount of Rs.2,60,000/- given to them. The officials of the bank again approached the complainant and vide email dated 12.09.2008 demanded 14 more documents. Those documents were submitted by the complainant on 20.09.2008. However, till 03.10.2008 the amount was not disbursed. The complainant wrote letter dated 12.12.2008 and OP bank again asked for more documents. The complainant again wrote letter dated 10.02.2009 to OP bank and asked for refund of the amount but to no avail. The complainant sent legal notice dated 14.04.2009 through its counsel which was duly received by OP and OP sent a false reply to the same. Terming the action of OP as deficiency in service, the present complaint has been filed whereby the complainant has prayed for refund of amount of Rs.2,60,000/- deposited with OP on 24.03.2008 with interest @ 24% p.a. and also sought compensation and litigation expenses.
The OP in reply took the plea that there is no cause of action in favour of the complainant and there was no deficiency in service on the part of OP. It is submitted that the complainant is a business entity and had applied for credit facility with commercial banking division of OP bank. The averments in the complaint and the documents show that the facility was applied for commercial purpose for the purpose of business. The nature of the credit facility itself shows that it was for commercial purpose and not for personal use. It is further stated that it is the complainant who had approached OP for credit facility and had duly applied for the same. The credit facility was duly accorded vide letter dated 12.02.2008. It is submitted that that OP has attached the sanction letter alongwith the terms and conditions of the sanction. It is further submitted that the complainant after understanding all the terms and conditions of the sanction had signed the same and accepted the sanction terms and issued to OP the Processing fee amount. It is a normal baking practice that processing fee is paid to process the sanction only and the same is non-refundable. This is because substantial time and effort is involved on the part of the bank in processing the sanction. The processing fee is to be paid irrespective of whether disbursal of loan takes place or not. It is submitted that the complainant vide letter dated 27.03.2009 asked OP to refund the amount. OP replied the same vide letter dated 11.05.2009 in which it is clearly mentioned that processing fee/limit loading charges are paid to process sanction since substantial time and effort are invested by the bank in processing sanction and scrutinizing information and documents. It was clearly agreed that the said charges are non-refundable. The same has been accepted and agreed in sanction letter issued by OP and accepted by the complainant. Clause 4.2 (a) read with Schedule B of Multi Option Facility Agreement signed by the complainant that all the charges and fees paid by the complainant (including limit loading charges) would be non-refundable. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
We have gone through the case file carefully.
The only point for consideration is whether the complainant is a consumer.
Admittedly the complainant is a private limited company and is a business entity and had applied for credit facility with commercial banking division of OP bank. The averments in the complaint and the documents show that the facility was applied for commercial purpose for the purpose of business. The nature of the credit facility itself shows that it was for commercial purpose and not for personal use.
The complainant is not a consumer as it availed credit facility. Reference in this regard is placed on the case of Nidhi Knitwears Pvt. Ltd. Vs Bank of Maharashtra – III (2014) CPJ 147 (NC). Reference in this regard is placed on the case of Richie Rich Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd. Vs State Bank of India & Ors. – IV (2015) CPJ 475 (NC).
Since the complainant is not a ‘consumer’ hence the complaint is dismissed.
Copy of order be sent to the parties, free of cost, and thereafter file be consigned to record room.
(H.C. SURI) (A.S. YADAV)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
