Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/175/2012

M/s.Indian Bank, Rep by its Branch Manager, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Praveen Kumar Mittal, son of Ishwardass Mittal - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.Aiyar & Dolia

01 Oct 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

 

                            BEFORE         THIRU.A.K.ANNAMALAI       PRESIDING  JUDICIAL MEMBER 

                               Tmt. P. BAKIYAVATHI                                                     MEMBER

F.A.NO. 175/2012

[Against the Order in  C.C No.8/2011 dated 13.1.2012 on the file of the DCDRF, The Nilgiris @ Udhagamandalam  ]

DATED THIS THE 1^st  DAY OF OCTOBER 2015

1.M/s Indian Bank

Rep.by its Branch Manager

Coonor Branch, The Nilgiris

 

2. The Chief Manager

Indian Bank, Circle Office,

Rural Banking Development, Coimbatore                                             ..Appellants/opp.parties

 

                                                                               Vs

1.Parveen Kumar Mittal

Son of Ishwardass Mittal,

No.61, Hill Cottage, Balacola, Tent Hill,

Connoor, The Nilgiris

 

2. M/s Santhosh Tea Industries (P) Ltd

Rep.by its Managing Director, M/s Ishwaradas Mittal,

Having its office at No.83-A, Gray’s Hill, Coonor.

 

3. Mrs.Santhosh Rani

Wife of Ishwardass Mittall

No.61,  Hill Cottage Balacola Tent Hill

Coonor, The Nilgiris                                                                           ..Respondents/complainants

 

Counsel for the Appellants/opp.parties     : M/s Aiyar & Dolia

Counsel for the Respondents/complainants  : Mr.T.K.Bhaskar (R1 to R3)

 

The opposite parties are the appellants.  The District Forum allowed the complaint. Against the said order, the Appellants/opposite parties filed this appeal praying to set aside the order of the District Forum, The Nilgiris @ Udhagamandalam  in CC.No. 8/2011 dated 13.1.2012.

         This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 29.9.2015 upon hearing the arguments on both side, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, The Nilgiris @ Udhagamandalam, this commission made the following order.

THIRU.A.K.ANNAMALAI,  PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

1.         The opposite parties are the appellants.

2.         The complainants having banking transactions with opposite parties availing cash credit facility and alleged  that on the promise of taking over of all loans from the State Bank of  Trivancore to enhance the cash credit facility to Rs. 1,25,00,000/- for their manufacturing unit and Rs.2,25,00,000/- to their trading unit, making the total cash credit facility to Rs.3,50,00,000/- at lesser rate of interest than that of the State Bank of Trivancore. The complainants agreed and submitted loan applications for three loans for which only two loans have been sanctioned regarding housing loan failed to sanction housing loan to the 1^st complainant even after obtaining necessary signatures of the party in all bank documents to the housing loan and since without taking over of all loans, the properties related loans from the Bank of Trivancore, the complainants cannot avail the sanctioned loan for which the opposite parties arbitrarily debited a sum of Rs. 98,000/- and Rs.24,000/- as process charges for which a consumer complaint came to be filed for the refund of the same along with a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation, mental agony and for costs.

3.       The opposite parties denied the allegations before the District Forum contending that the loans were sanctioned after taking necessary steps for processing and following other various procedures for which necessary charges to be paid as per the terms and conditions were debited after sanctioning the loans and the complainants have not availed the same as the processing fees already spent which cannot be refunded which are agreed to pay the same by the complainants while sanctioning the loan.

4.          Based on both side materials and after an enquiry,  the District Forum allowed the complaint with the observation that when they are not in a position to sanction one housing loan under the reason as it belongs to commercial one, they should not have sanctioned entire loans and thereby allowed the refund of process fee against which the opposite parties come forward with this appeal.

5.      The appellants in the grounds of appeal contended that there is no agreement or understanding between the parties only if all the three loans are sanctioned, they would avail the same. They have applied for separate loan and different categories with separate cause of action and how the working capital loan can be inter related housing loan was not explained by the District Forum. In Ex.B.9 by the 2^nd complainant expressing his inability to avail the loan was not considered by the District Forum. Only the complainants have failed to avail the credit facility after sanctioning the limit. The bank will not refund process fees and other incidental charges which are debited as per the guidelines of the Head office in the system. The complaint is bases on false averments and against the letter under Ex.B.9. The Bank has intimated the Respondents that they have sanctioned credit facility and can avail the same but they failed to accept the same. Obtaining of legal opinion, valuation reports are pre-liquisite for processing of any loan,

    Fee was collected as per the terms contained in the sanction ticket.

6.       When the appeal is taken up for bearing the Respondent/complainant failed to represent and not come forward with argument in spite of sufficient chances given. Hence after hearing the appellant, the order being passed on merits.

7.        It is the admitted case of both sides that the complainant have applied for 3 types of loans in which one loan of was not sanctioned to the 1^st complainant, as property to be mortgaged relates to said to be commercial in nature. For the other two loans are concerned, were sanctioned to enhance the credit facilities to the extent of Rs.1,25,00,000/- for their trading unit and another Rs.2,25,00,000/- for trading unit for which sanction tickets were issued under Ex.A.3 and A.4 and promissory note and loan agreement were executed under Ex.A.5 and Ex.A.6. On perusal of loan sanction ticket under Ex.A.3, home loan for Rs. 15 lakhs was granted by taking over loan of the State Bank of Trivancore in which in condition No.20, it is stated that processing fee upto 0.25% collected at the time of submission of proposal is not refundable and also in condition No. 21 besides the processing fee, administration fee of 0.32% to be collected before release and under Ex.A.4, cash credit limit was sanctioned for 125 lakhs proposed limit apart from existing  220 lakhs limits in which also under the terms and conditions in pre disbursement conditions in sub-clause, it is pointed out

  a). the processing charges to be recovered in this account is  at 0.28% with minimum of Rs.1500/- for working capital.

b) EM charges Rs.200.00 per lakh subject to the maximum of Rs.12,000.00

c) Inspection charges at Rs.1000.00 per inspection + actual TA/DA charges to be recovered.

8.       As per these pre disbursement conditions, these amounts are to be collected before release of the loan sanctioned and the complainants were duly intimated about the same and there after  under Ex.B.8, the complainant informed to the opposite parties that due to sentimental reasons unfortunately they could not avail the loan sanction and regretting for the same and requesting for reverse their charges debited in their accounts and oblige and also in Ex.B.9, letter of the complainant sent to the opposite parties saying, “Thanking for the sanctioning the limits, due to sentimental and various reasons, unfortunately they are unable to avail the above credit facilities, they regret for the same and they are not availing the facilities, we request you to refund the processing charges and other charges debited”.

9.          From these letters under Ex.B.8 and B.9, it is clear that the complainants not availed the loans already sanctioned and have not availed the same under sentimental and various other reasons as appellant contended prior to sanction of loan, the processing fee to be utilized for obtaining various process, legal opinion and to pay inspection charges and other incidental expenses which are all to be borne by the person who  applied for loan. If the loan availing the same, they cannot claim refund of processing fee and other charges spent for the same unless the terms and conditions are permitted for the same. Under the agreement, in this case under Ex.A.3 and A.4, sanction ticket under the pre-disbursement conditions, it is clearly mentioned that the processing fee and EM charges and other charges not refundable and thereby the District Forum directing the opposite parties to refund the same without going to the relevant materials in this regard is erroneous one and liable to be set aside by allowing this appeal, accordingly,

         In the result, this appeal is allowed, setting aside the order of the District Forum, The Nilgiris @ Udhagamandalam in CC 8/2011 dated 13.1.2012. The complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.

           Registry is directed to refund the mandatory deposit with accrued interest duly discharged in favour of the Appellants/opposite parties.

 

 

P.BAKIYAVATHI                                                                         A.K.ANNAMALAI       

 MEMBER                                                                        PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER