Punjab

Sangrur

CC/940/2015

M/s Nav Durga Rice Mills - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab & Sind Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Kamal Singla

13 Jun 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                             

                                                Complaint No.  940

                                                Instituted on:    01.09.2015

                                                Decided on:       13.06.2016

 

M/s. Nav Durga Rice Mills, Mehlan Chowk, Sunam through its partners Usha Gupta wife of Gian Chand: Rakesh Kumar son of Gian Chand and Ramesh Kumar son of Gian Chand, residents of Sunam, District Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

 

1              Punjab and Sind Bank, City Road, Sunam, District Sangrur through its Branch Manager.

2.             Punjab and Sind Bank, Zonal Office, Rajbaha Road, Patiala through Zonal Branch Manager.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

 

For the complainant  :       Shri Kamal Singla, Adv.

For OPs.                   :       Shri L.K.Singla, Adv.

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             M/s. Nav Durga Rice Mills through its partners Usha Gupta, Rakesh Kumar and Ramesh Kumar, complainants (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant obtained a CC limit of Rs.40.00 Lacs under account number 0118160000027, which was renewed from time to time prior giving the intimation to the complainant and after receiving the documents as required by the OPs. The case of the complainant is that the Ops have levied the excess interest i.e. 14.50% instead of 12.50% on the CC limit of the complainant as penal interest w.e.f. 1.4.2014 to 31.3.2015 and by this way, the OPs have charged the excess interest of Rs.43,188/- as detailed in the complaint.  As such, the complainant approached the Ops for refund of the amount of Rs.43,188/- so charges in excess penal interest and on inquiry it was told that the excess amount has been charged due to non renewal of CC limit by the OPs. It is further averred that the manager of the Ops also assured that the excess amount so recovered will be refunded to the complainant. Further case of the complainant is that the Op number 1 sent a letter to the OP number 2 on 4^th May, 2015 and requested to the OP number 2 to return the penal interest of Rs.43,430/-, but all in vain and nothing was refunded. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to reverse/return the excess penal interest of Rs.43,430/- along with interest and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable and that the complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer.  On merits, it is admitted that the complainant is having the limit as mentioned in the complaint. However, it is stated that the interest has been rightly charged because complainant could not produce the documents for renewal of the CC limit. However, it is stated that the complainant at the time of visit in the office of OP number 2 with letter dated 15.5.2015, he was orally told that the penal interest has been rightly recovered as per the computer system.  The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied. 

 

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-3 affidavits, Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-7 copy of applications, Ex.C-8 to Ex.C-18 copies of statements of account, Ex.C-19 to Ex.C-31 copies of accounts books, Ex.C-32 to Ex.C-34 copies of letter and closed evidence.  On the other hand, the learned counsel for OPs has produced  Ex.OP-1 affidavit, Ex.OP-2 copy of letter dated 28.11.2013, Ex.OP-3 copy of letter dated 29.03.2013, Ex.OP-4 copy of statement of accounts and closed evidence.

 

4.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties, evidence produced on the file and written submissions and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits dismissal, for these reasons.

 

5.             In the present complaint, the case of the complainant is that the Ops have wrongly charged penal interest of Rs.43,188/- on his cash credit limit and the same has not been refunded despite his several requests to the OPs.  The OPs in their written reply has submitted that the interest has been rightly charged because the complainant had not submitted the required documents for the renewal of the CC limit and hence the OPs are not deficient in service.

 

6.             After hearing the arguments of both the counsel for the parties and on the perusal of the documents placed on record, we do not find any evidence with regard to the submission of the documents by the complainant for the renewal of the CC limit. Though the complainant was aware of the fact that the cash credit limit will be renewed on submission of his documents as is evident from the complaint that “the opposite parties renewed the CC limit of the complainant from time to time prior giving intimation to the complainant and after receiving the documents as required by the opposite parties.”  So, from this it is clear that it was very well in the knowledge of the complainant that the CC limit will be renewed by the Ops only on the submission of documents by the complainant. But from the perusal of the record, we do not find any evidence that the complainant had submitted the documents for the renewal of the CC limit.

 

7.             The OPs in support of their version have placed on record the document Ex.OP-3 in which at serial number 2 it has been mentioned that “loan/limit to be got reviewed/renewed within 12 months. Financial statements to be obtained from party every year and renewal sanction to be obtained from competent authority well in time.”  So, when the complainant has consented to the sanction letter and have availed the limit as per the sanction letter, so it was his duty to get the limit renewed after submitting the required documents.

 

8.             In his complaint, the complainant has nowhere mentioned that the CC limit was availed to earn his livelihood by engaging in the present business activity and as such, the activity done by the complainant is that of commercial nature as he has availed a big limit of Rs.40.00 Lacs from the Ops.  Reliance can be made on the judgment of the Hon’ble National Commission  New Delhi delivered in First Appeal No.225 of 2008 decided on 5.1.2015 in the case of Oriental Bank of Commerce versus Sushil Gulati, in which it has been held that “admittedly, cash credit limit was obtained by the complainant for running his business. Complainant no where in the complaint has mentioned that he was carrying on the business by means of self employment for earning his livelihood.  In such circumstances, aforesaid facility falls within the purview of commercial transaction and complainant does not fall within the purview of the consumer”.

 

9.             So, in the light of above judgment, it becomes clear that the complaint is not maintainable as cash credit facility was taken for commercial purpose and the complainant himself is at default in not submitting the documents to the Ops for the renewal of the limit and as such, we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs in charging the amount, accordingly the complaint is dismissed.  However, no order as to costs. A  copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                June 13, 2016.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

                                       

                                                           (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                Member                                                     

 

 

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member