1.      Heard Mr. Pankaj Prasad, Advocate for the appellants and Mr. Pawan Kumar Ray, Advocate, for the respondent.

2.      Above appeal has been filed against the order of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow dated 04.06.2024, passed in CC/97/2015, allowing the complaint with costs of Rs.25000/- and directing the appellant to refund Rs.2648555/- with interest @6% per annum, realized as penal interest.  

3.      Sitapur Shiksha Sansthan (Sitapur) Trust (the respondent) filed CC/97/2015 for directing the appellants to refund Rs.2648555/- with interest @16% per annum, debited as penal interest, in its loan account; (ii) pay Rs.300000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment; (iii) pay Rs.25000/- as litigation costs; and (iv) any other relief which is deemed fit and proper in the facts of the case.  The complainant stated that Sitapur Shiksha Sansthan (Sitapur) Trust was a charitable trust formed with the object to work for betterment and uplift the society at large and down trodden/EWS/SC/ST section, by providing quality education at affordable cost especially in the backward district of Sitapur. Punjab National Bank (the OP) was a banking company constituted under the provisions of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1970 and engaged in banking business. The complainant applied for sanction of working capital and term loan for establishing educational institution. The OP sanctioned loan on 17.03.2008, after completing the formalities. On account of poor performance in beginning, the complainant could not pay the instalment on time and applied for restructure it, in terms of the sanctioned letter. The OP sanctioned for restructure of the loan on 13.08.2012 with condition to get ‘external risk rating’ from CRISIL within 6 months. After receiving the letter dated 13.08.2012, the complainant approached CRISIL and deposited requisite fee on 11.10.2012, for ‘external risk rating’. The CRISIL completed ‘external risk rating’ of the account of the complainant on 08.02.2013. The OPs raised some queries and in the light of objection, CRSIL finalized ‘external risk rating’ on 26.06.2013, which was accepted by the OP. The complainant again got ‘external risk rating’ from the CRISIL on 06.10.2014. However, the OP charged penal interest of Rs.1757330/- debited on 28.09.2012 and Rs.124639/-, debited on 29.12.2012 and are charging interest @16% per annum on this amount also. When the complainant protested for charging penal interest, the branch office recommended for not charging penal interest, however, the competent authority has rejected the recommendation on 16.01.2015. Alleging unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant filed the above complaint.

4.      Punjab National Bank (the OP) filed their written reply stating that during inspection, poor performance of the complainant was noticed and the loan account of the complainant was irregular for a long time. The complainant applied for restructure of the loan account. The OP sanctioned for restructure of the loan on 13.08.2012 with condition to get ‘external risk rating’ from CRISIL within 6 months. Under the Circular Nos.3/09 dated 01.12.2009, 1/10 dated 19.01.2010 and 15/2010 dated 21.04.2010, ‘external risk rating’ had to be completed till 31.03.2010, failing which penal interest @.5% per annum on the outstanding dues as on 31.03.2010 was required to be charged. Penal interest was charged per rule of the bank. The complainant is a trust and does not fall within the definition of the ‘consumer’. There is no deficiency in service on their part and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.   

5.      After hearing the parties, the State Commission vide judgment dated 04.06.2024, relying upon judgement of Supreme Court in Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust Vs. M/s. Unique Shanti Developers, (2020) 2 SCC 265, held that the complaint was maintainable. The OP sanctioned for restructure of the loan on 13.08.2012 with condition to get ‘external risk rating’ from CRISIL within 6 months. After receiving the letter dated 13.08.2012, the complainant approached CRISIL and deposited requisite fee on 11.10.2012, for ‘external risk rating’. The CRISIL completed ‘external risk rating’ of the account of the complainant on 08.02.2013. The OPs raised some queries and in the light of objection, CRSIL finalized ‘external risk rating’ on 26.06.2013, which was accepted by the OP.  The report of ‘external risk rating’ was obtained within six months of sanction of restructure as such penal interest was not payable. On these finding the complaint was allowed and the opposite parties were directed as stated above. Hence this appeal has been filed.

6.      We have considered the arguments of the counsel for the appellants and examined the record. So far as maintainability of the complaint by the ‘trust’ is concerned, Supreme Court in Kalpvruksha Charitable Trust Vs. Toshniwal Brothers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd., (2000) 1 SCC 512 and Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust Vs. M/s. Unique Shanti Developers, (2020) 2 SCC 265, held that the complaint filed by the trust was maintainable. Although this issue is referred for consideration of larger bench of Supreme Court but in spite of reference, we are bound to follow above cases.   

7.      The appellants rely upon the RMD Circular Nos.3/09 dated 01.12.2009, 1/10 dated 19.01.2010 and 15/2010 dated 21.04.2010 and 21/09 dated 30.09.2010 which require that ‘external risk rating’ had to be completed till 31.03.2010, failing which penal interest @.5% per annum on the outstanding dues as on 31.03.2010 was required to be charged. RMD Circular Nos.3/09 dated 01.12.2009 and 1/10 dated 19.01.2010 have not been produced. But a perusal of the Circular No.15/2010 dated 21.04.2010, shows that all the Circle Heads of the bank were directed to ensure that ‘Credit Risk rating’ from External Agency in all eligible cases is got done by 31.03.2010. In the present case, there is nothing on record that the respondent was ever asked to get ‘Credit Risk rating’ from External Agency done before 31.03.2010. It is only for the first time, the OP sanctioned for restructure of the loan on 13.08.2012 with condition to get ‘external risk rating’ from CRISIL within 6 months. After receiving the letter dated 13.08.2012, the complainant approached CRISIL and deposited requisite fee on 11.10.2012, for ‘external risk rating’. The CRISIL completed ‘external risk rating’ of the account of the complainant on 08.02.2013. The OPs raised some queries and in the light of objection, CRSIL finalized ‘external risk rating’ on 26.06.2013, which was accepted by the OP. In the absence of any communication to the respondent, before 13.08.2012, charging penal interest as on 31.03.2010 was not proper. We do not find any illegality in the order of State Commission.     

ORDER

In view of the aforesaid discussions, the appeal has no merit and is dismissed.