Delhi

StateCommission

A/192/2016

B.S. THAKUR - Complainant(s)

Versus

STANDARD CHARTERED BANK - Opp.Party(s)

VISHWA NATH

22 Apr 2016

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

 

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

Date of Decision :22.04.2016

 

First Appeal No. 192/2016

 

(Arising out of the order dated 26.11.15 passed in Complaint Case No.004/1183/122 passed by the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum-VI, New Delhi District , Delhi.)

 

In the matter of

B.S. Thakur (Partner)

M/s. Dyanatech Insulation &

Technical Services

AT : RZ-A/14, Ground Floor,

Backside Prahaladpur Extn.,

New Delhi-110044

 

……Appellant

 

Versus

The Manager,

Standard Chartered Bank

Auto Collection 10,

Sansad Marg,

New Delhi.

 

…Respondent

 

CORAM

Justice Veena Birbal, President

Salma Noor, Member

 

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the      judgment?

2.     To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

Justice Veena Birbal, President

1.             Appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 26.11.15 passed by the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum-VI, New Delhi District, New Delhi (in short,’the District Forum’) whereby his Complaint Case bearing No.183/12 filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (in short, ’the Act), has been dismissed.
2.             The case of the appellant/complainant was that he had availed overdraft facility from the respondent Bank and said facility was stopped without any intimation to him on 17.3.10. A legal notice was also sent by him but of no result.  It was alleged that due to closing of said overdraft limit, the appellant/complainant had suffered a heavy business loss and had prayed for the grant of Rs.3,00,000/- on account of harassment & mental agony caused to him and Rs. 20,000/- towards litigations costs.
3.             The aforesaid complaint was contested by the respondent/OP before the Ld. District Forum by filing a detailed written statement and reliance was placed on the agreement between the parties i.e. OPW 3/1 and it was alleged that since minimum payment was not there in the account of the appellant/complainant, the overdraft facility was withdrawn.  It was also alleged that as per clause 4 of the agreement Ex.OPW 3/1, the respondent/OP bank was entitled to stop the credit facility at any time in its discretion. It was also alleged that before withdrawal of the facility, written intimation was also given to the appellant/complainant vide letter dated 25.11.09 i.e. Ex. OPW 4/1.
4.             Both the parties led evidence in the form of affidavit.
5.             After hearing both the parties, the Ld. District Forum dismissed the complaint by holding that OP bank was within its right to withdraw overdraft facility. Accordingly the complaint was dismissed.
6.             Aggrieved with the aforesaid order present appeal is filed.
7.             Ld. Counsel for the appellant has contended that the appellant did not receive any notice from the bank as such the bank could not have withdrawn the overdraft facility. It is contended that it has been  wrongly recorded in the impugned order that the notice was served upon the appellant/complainant. It is further contended that the withdrawl of overdraft facility in the facts and circumstances of the case amounts to deficiency in service as such the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
8.             We have considered the submissions made and perused the material on record.
9.             At the outset it may be mentioned that the overdraft facility was availed by the appellant/complainant for the business purposes.  We have also asked the Ld. Counsel for appellant in this regard and he has stated that the overdraft facility was taken for the business facility of the appellant/complainant.  It is not the case of appellant/complainant that the facility of respondent/OP bank was availed for earning livelihood. The Ld. District Forum has not examined the aforesaid aspect of the matter. Since the service of respondent/OP was availed by the appellant/complainant for the business purposes. In these circumstances, appellant/complainant is not a ‘consumer’ within the meaning of section 2(1)(d) of the Act and the consumer complaint filed by appellant was not maintainable before the Ld. District Forum. Reliance is made upon the judgment of the Hon’ble National Commission titled State Bank of India v. Anurag Textile Rakesh Brothers III (2015) CPJ 86 (NC).
10.             In any event, we have also considered the contentions raised before us and have gone through the clause-4 of the agreement OPW 3/1, we have also gone through the written statement of the respondent/OP wherein it is categorically mentioned that the respondent/OP bank may at any time in its sole discretion and without assigningany reason and upon written notice being given can cancel the said facility.
11.             It has also come in the written statement  of the appellant/OP that account of appellant/OP was reviewed and no payment punctuality was found and accordingly a letter dated 25.11.09, was sent for the withdrawl of overdraft facilities. It has come in the written statement that despite sending the aforesaid letter, the appellant/complainant failed to give effect towards clearance of lawful dues of respondent/OP. It has also come in the evidence of the respondent/OP which is in the form of affidavit of Sh. Anand Prakash, working as Customer Service manager, Customer Care Unit of the /OP bank that the letter dated 25.11.09 i.e. OPW 4/1 was sent in this regard to the appellant/complainant via M/s. Blue Dart Couriers and the copy of letter is also placed. It has also come in the evidence that despite sending aforesaid letter appellant/OP did not clear pending dues. The aforesaid evidence is not rebutted in any manner. There is nothing on record to show that withdrawal of overdraft facility was arbitrary. The material on record shows that the same was in accordance with the agreement between the parties i.e. EX OPW3/1.
12.             In these circumstances, we find no error in the impugned order of Ld. District forum whereby it is held that there is no deficiency in service on the part of respondent/OP. A well reasoned order is passed by the Ld. District Forum.
13.             Appeal stands dismissed in limine.
14.             A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the District Forum –VI, New Delhi District for information.

                     File be consigned to record room.

 

 (Justice Veena Birbal)

President

 

(Salma Noor)

Member