Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/434/2022

Managing Director Rajus Flat Promoters Thirumanagalam chennai 40 - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S Karur Vysya Bank Senior Manager No.189 Sannathi Street Thiruverkadu Chennai - Opp.Party(s)

T.S.Gopalan & Co

28 Mar 2023

ORDER

IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

 

Present:   Hon’ble THIRU JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH  : PRESIDENT

                 THIRU R  VENKATESAPERUMAL          :    MEMBER

 

F.A. No. 434 of 2022

(Against the order passed in C.C. No.51 of 2018 dated 28.06.2022 on the file of the D.C.D.R.C., Thiruvallur.

 

Tuesday, the 28^th day of March 2023

 

1.  The Senior Manager

     M/s.Karur Vysya Bank Ltd.,   

     No.189, Sannathi Street

     Thiruverkadu Branch

     Thiruverkadu, Chennai.

 

2.  The Chief Manager

     M/s.Karur Vysya Bank Ltd.,         

     KVB Towers, 1^st Floor,

     568, Anna Salai

     Teynampet

     Chennai– 600 018.                        .. Appellants/Opposite Parties

 

 

- Vs –

 

M/s. Raju Flat Promoters Pvt Ltd.,

Rep. by its Managing Director

Mr.S.Madhusudan

Raju Gem, New No.2 (Old No.1)

Navalar Nagar,

Thirumangalam Road

Anna Nagar,

Chennai – 600 040.                             .. Respondent/ Complainant

  Counsel for Appellants /

Opposite parties          :  M/s.T.S. Gopalan & Co. 

  Counsel for the Respondent/Complainant   :   M/s.S. Janarthanan                                                                       

 

                The Respondent as complainant had filed a complaint before the District Commission against the opposite parties praying for certain directions. The District Commission had passed an ex-parte order, allowing the complaint, in part. Against the said ex-parte order, this appeal is preferred by the opposite parties praying to set aside the order of the District Commission dt. 28.06.2022 in CC. No.51/2018.

 

        This petition came before us for hearing finally, today.  Upon hearing the arguments of the counsel appearing for appellant and on perusing the documents, lower court records and the order passed by the District Commission, this Commission made the following order in the open court.

 

JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH ,  PRESIDENT  (Open court)

 

        1.  The opposite parties 1 & 2 before the District Commission are the appellants herein.

 

        2. The case of the complainant before the District Commission is that they are a private limited company carrying on the business of promoting flats and they have completed many projects in Chennai.  They have approached the opposite parties Bank for Project Term Loan, to their projects namely, ‘Rajus Citadel’ and ‘Rajus Aishwaryam’, in Chennai.  Considering the request of the complainant, the 2^nd opposite party had given a preliminary sanction of credit facilities vide their letter in Ref.No.CLPC/1199/RFPL/2015-16 dated 12.11.2015 for the proposed loan of Rs.4 crores.  According to the letter of sanction of credit facilities, the complainant had to pay Rs.4,58,000/- including service tax @ 14.5% as processing charges and Rs.5725/- including service tax @ 14.5% as documentation charges.  But, thereafter nothing was processed by the opposite parties.  Without processing the loan papers, the opposite parties have fraudulently debited a sum of Rs.4,29,375/-, towards project loan processing charges, from the Current Account of the complainant, holding with the 1^st opposite party Bank, which is illegal and would amount to deficiency of service.   After exchange of correspondences, the complainant had filed a complaint claiming a sum of Rs.4,29,375/-  along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of transfer on 28.03.2016 and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and torture. 

 

        3.     Though notice was served, the 1^st Appellant/ 1^st opposite party, remained absent before the District Commission and hence on 20.12.2018 the 1^st opposite party was set ex-parte.  Though a vakalat was filed on behalf of the 2^nd opposite party, they have not chosen to file version, inspite of sufficient opportunities given.  Hence, the 2^nd opposite party was also set ex-parte on 18.10.2019. Consequently, the District Commission passed an ex-parte order directing the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.4,29,375/- with 6% interest from 28.03.2016 till realization and to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, along with a sum of Rs.5000/- towards litigation expenses, to the complainant.  Aggrieved over the said order, this appeal is preferred by the opposite parties, praying for setting aside the order and for a chance to contest the case on merits. 

 

        4. Before this commission the opposite parties would contend that in the year 2015, the respondent/ complainant had approached the opposite parties Bank for availing Project Term Loan for a sum of Rs.400 lakhs, in respect of project titled as ‘Rajus Citadel’ for construction of 6 flats at Perambur, Chennai and another Term Loan for a sum of Rs.70 lakhs in respect of the project ‘Rajus Aishwaryam’ at Ayapakkam, Chennai for construction of 24 individual houses.  The respondent/complainant submitted a loan application dated 15.06.2015 for a total loan amount of Rs.470 lakhs, to the 1^st Appellant herein.  In order to avail the said loan facilities, the respondent offered both the project sites situated at Perambur and Ayapakkam as primary securities and another personal property of the Managing Director of the respondent company situated at Kolathur, Chennai as collateral.  Normally, after scrutiny of the securities offered by the loan applicant, the Branch would obtain a legal opinion from the Panel Advocate and Valuation Reports from the Panel Valuer.  The legal opinion and valuation reports given by the Panel Advocate/Valuer would be subjected to another round of scrutiny by in-house legal cell.  Upon their approval, the concerned Branch will initiate further steps to disburse the sanctioned amount.  Further, the necessary processing fee would be debited from the loan applicant’s account as soon as the sanction order is communicated to the loan applicant.  In this case, the loan application of the respondent was processed by the appellant Bank in accordance with the prevailing rules and regulations. On 24.07.2015, the Chartered Engineer and Approved Valuer, on behalf of the appellant Bank, submitted his Certificate on Genuineness of the estimate given by the respondent in his application in respect of the two properties offered as securities stating that the estimate given by the respondent is found to be ‘unreasonable’.  Therefore, they are having a valid defence and a fair chance of succeeding the complaint. The non-appearance before the District Commission is neither willful nor wanton.  Thus, prayed for an opportunity to contest the case on merits.

 

        5. When the case had come up before this Commission on 13.03.2023, after hearing the submission of both sides, this Commission had felt that there is some force in the arguments of the counsel for the appellants/opposite parties and therefore in order to give a chance to the opposite parties to agitate their right on merits, was inclined to allow this appeal by remanding the matter to the District Commission, to dispose of the case on merit.   However, considering the lethargic attitude of the opposite parties, in not appearing before the District Commission, we imposed a cost of Rs.3000/- to be paid to the Legal Aid Account of the State Commission on or before 27.03.2023. Today, when the matter appeared in the list it was reported that the condition imposed by this Commission has been complied with.    Hence, this appeal is allowed today by remanding back the complaint to the District Commission for fresh disposal according to law. 

 

        6. In the result, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the order of the District Commission, Thiruvallur, in C.C.No.51/2018 dt.28.06.2022, and the matter is remanded back to the District Commission, Thiruvallur, for fresh disposal according to law and on merits.

 

Parties are directed to appear before the District Commission, Thiruvallur on 28.04.2023, for taking further instructions. On which date itself, 1^st opposite party shall file their vakalat and both the opposite parties to file their written version, proof affidavit and documents if any. The District Commission is directed to dispose of the complaint, within three months from the date of appearance, according to law and on merits.  

The amount deposited by the appellants, shall remain in the custody of this commission, till the disposal of the original complaint.

 

 

 

   R  VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                                                                       R. SUBBIAH

                 MEMBER                                                                                                                          PRESIDENT

 

 

 

Index :  Yes/ No

 

AVR/SCDRC/Chennai/Orders/March/2023