Delhi

New Delhi

CC/316/2013

Silvertones Impex Pvt Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Karnataka Bank Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

26 Oct 2015

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTT. NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR,

VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.CC/316/13                       Dated:

 

In the matter of:

MS.SILVERTONES IMPEX PVT. LTD.

THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR SH.VINAY CHAWLA,

95A, MUNICIPAL MARKET, CONNAUGHT CIRCUS,

NEW DELHI-110092.

         ……..COMPLAINANT

       

VERSUS

 

KARNATAKA BANK LTD.

MAIN BRANCH, OUTER CIRCLE,

CONNAUGHT PLACE,

NEW DELHI

 

………. OPPOSITE PARTY

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ORDER 

 

Member: Ritu Garodia

The complainant is a company which sought enhancement of overdraft facility from 8 crores to 10 crores. This was sanctioned by OP Bank with a precondition that commitment charges of 0.5% would be imposed if there was under-utilization of sanctioned limit to the extent of 75%.  However, on 5.10.2012, commitment chares of Rs.18,967/- was imposed in spite of utilization of 93%.  He requested for refund which was refused.  The complainant then closed the overdraft account.  However, a processing charge of Rs.5,26,686/- was deducted on 6.10.2012 immediately after closure request as processing charges from 31.8.2012 to 30.11.32013.  The complainant further contends that the said processing charges have already been deducted on 28.9.2012.  A legal notice was sent on 12.11.2012. Thereafter a complaint was filed for refund of same with interest.  OP replied to the legal notice on 20^th November, 2012 wherein it agreed to refund Rs.18,967/- for commitment charges but stated that processing charges were collected as per sanction letter.

OP in the reply to notice dated 15th November, 2012 stated that as bank has granted an amount of Rs.10 crore enhanced from Rs.8 crore and Rs.5 crore enhanced from Rs.2 crore.  It is further alleged that  0.50% of loan amount as processing charges for period of 15 months came to Rs.10,53,315 which was deducted in two stages.

OP has reiterated the same in its reply and evidence affidavit.  OP has also stated that relationships between the parties are based on contract and as such OPs are not providing any service to complainant as consumer.

We have considered the argument and perused the pleadings of both parties.  It is well settled law that banking services falls within the purview of consumer and all service by any service provider is based on contract.  The enhancement of limit and 0.5% as processing fees is not disputed by both parties.  Complainant has annexed statement of account.  Relevant entries are as follows:-

82	28.09.2012	To processing charges @0.25 for 15 months	Rs.1,300/-
84	28.9.2012	To processing charges from 6.9.2012 to 30.11.2013	Rs.5,26,789/-
134	6.10.2012	To processing charges from 31.8.2012 to 30.11.2013	Rs. 5,26,789/-
135	6.10.2012	To processing charges261 PITC/380 closure of loan vide letter	Rs.31,848,041/-

 

OP has neither in oral submission and a pleading has explained the relevance of entry no.82.  Entry no.84 clearly states that processing charges for the period from 6.9.2012 to 030/11/2013 has been deducted.  Once the processing charges for a given period has been arrived at through internal calculation and deducted from a customer of the bank, how can it be deducted again for the same period?  Entry no.135 is relevant as its shows that loan account is being closed and processing fees is charged again for the same person vide entry no.134 on same day.  In addition, OP has kept a veil over calculation of processing fees.  It has also failed to explain why the charges were deducted on two dates.

It is apparent from the entries that OP has arbitrarily and in a high handed manner, on receipt of notice of closure of loan account, charged twice the processing fees.  We, therefore find OP guilty of deficient and deceptive trade practice which falls within the meaning of unfair trade practice.  We direct OP to refund the processing fees charged on 6.10.12 with 9% interest and also award Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment and unfair trade practice inclusive of litigation expenses.

The order shall be complied with within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the order; otherwise action can be taken under Section 25 / 27 of the Consumer Protection Act.

File be consigned to record room.

Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost.

 

 

        Pronounced in open Court on 26.10.2015.

 

 

 

(C.K.CHATURVEDI)

PRESIDENT

 

         

 

(RITU GARODIA)

MEMBER