DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
PATIALA.
Consumer Complaint No. 394 of 21.9.2016
Decided on: 01/02/2018
Jaswant Singh, Proprietor of Guru Teg Bahadur Feed Mills, Passiana, resident of village Duttal, Tehsil and District Patiala.
…………...Complainant
Versus
Punjab & Sind Bank, branch Gur Mandi, Patiala, through its Chief Manager, Patiala.
…………Opposite Party
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Neena Sandhu, President
Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member
ARGUED BY:
Sh. Sukhwinder Singh, Advocate, counsel
for complainant.
Sh. Manpreet Singh Advocate, counsel for opposite party.
ORDER
SMT. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT
Sh. Jaswant Singh, complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as the O.P.)
In brief, the case of the complainant is that he availed an OD limit (loan against property) amounting to Rs.25,00,000/- for running his feed mill. At the time of availing the loan, it was agreed between the parties that interest on the loan amount should be as per the rate of interest fixed by Reserved Bank of India. It is stated that at one point, the rate of interest was increased @13.25% and he paid the said rate of interest but now the rate of interest was decreased to @10.25% and the OP instead of charging the said rate of interest is charging the same @12.50% illegally and arbitrarily. He requested the OP for charging the interest @10.25% but it did not hear his request stating that the instructions of RBI regarding rate interest are not applicable to the case of the complainant. It is also stated that the unit of feed falls within Small Scale Industry and as the price of raw material has been increased the unit is going in loss. The OP is taking undue advantage of his position and is charging money under different heads such is lien amount of Rs.22,909/- renewal charges, law charges and SARFASIS charges etc. for which the OP has no right as he is paying interest regularly. The said act and conduct of the OP amounted to deficiency of service on its part which caused mental agony and physical harassment to him. Hence this complaint for the prayer for a direction to the OP to charge interest at the rate of interest which has been fixed by Reserve Bank of India from time to time, to refrain from other charges except the interestand the OP be also directed to refund the excess amount . Any other relief, which this Forum may deem fit may also be awarded.
3. On being put to notice, the OP appeared and filed the written version stating that the complainant (OP no.1) had availed the ODP limit of Rs.25,00,000/- by way of enhancement from Rs.15,00,000/- and one term loan of Rs.2,95,450/- sanctioned on 24.10.2009 @ 13.50% per annum with monthly rests. It is admitted that it was agreed between the parties that interest on the loan amount should be as per the rate of interest fixed by the Reserve Bank of India. The complainant has executed and signed the loan documents @ 13.50% per annum. He has also agreed to pay penal rate of interest @2% per annum over and above the normal rate of interest, in case of default in re-payment of the loan amount. No undue advantage of the position of complainant ever taken by the OP. The amount of Rs.22,909/- on account of lien was marked on the account for charges such as inspection charges of 5 quarters Rs.1250/- each amounting to Rs.6250, processing/renewal charges of Rs.12,500/-, led folio charges of Rs.1170/- and service tax @15% on total amount of Rs.19,920/- i.e. Rs.2989/- which came in total of Rs.22,909/-. It is stated that the both loan account of the complainant became Non Performing Assets within the definition of Section 2(O) of the Act, as on 31.3.2014, the complainant defaulted in the repayment of the dues of the bank. The OP issued notice to the complainant to deposit the over due amount. Thereafter a case under Section 14 of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,2002 for taking possession of secured assets was filed in the court of District Magistrate, Patiala who has passed an order to take the possession of the secured assets. After denying all other averments made in the complaint, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
4. On being called to do so, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C3 and closed the evidence.
The ld. counsel for the OP has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Sh. Satish Kumar, Sr. Branch Manager of the OP alongwith documents Exs.OP1 to OP15 and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
6. As per the complainant, he had taken a loan from the OP on floating rate of interest. The op, ought to have charged the interest at the prevalent rate of interest as fixed by the Reserve Bank of India. He has alleged that at a certain point of time, the prevalent rate of interest was @12.25% per annum but OP had charged from him @12.75% per annum. On the other hand, the OP has refuted the said allegation leveled by the complainant and contended that the prevalent rate of interest as fixed by the Reserve Bank of India was charged from the complainant as per the agreement. The loan was sanctioned on 24/10/2009 @ 13.50% per annum with monthly rests as is evident from document Ex.OP-2. It may be stated here that no cogent document(s) has been placed on record by the complainant to show that at what specific time, what was the prevalent rate of interest and what rate of interest was charged by the OP. The complainant has also alleged that the OP had illegally extracted money from him under other heads such as lien charges, renewal charges, law charges and Sarfasis charges etc.. The stand of the OP is that it had charged the amount from the complainant as depicted in document Ex.OP-13. At the time of taking the loan, the complainants authorize the bank to debit the amount for the necessary expenses, as is evident from document Ex.OP-15. Thus the complainant has no reason to raise this issue at this stage. No document has been placed on record by the complainant to prove the said fact that the OP had charged extra amount from him than as mentioned in the document Ex.OP-13. Thus this allegation of the complainant is also baseless. In this view of the matter, we do not find any merit in the complaint filed of the complainant. Consequently, we dismiss the same without any order as to costs. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of cost under the rules. Thereafter, the file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.
ANNOUNCED
DATED: 01/02/2018
NEENA SANDHU
PRESIDENT
NEELAM GUPTA
MEMBER
