DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016
Case No.103/12
M/s Esson Furnishing Pvt. Ltd.
Through its Authorised Representative
D-193, Jeevan Deep Building
Lajpat Nagar-I
New Delhi-110024. …Complainant
VERSUS
Standard Chartered Bank
(Through its Branch Manager)
Sansad Marg Branch, Delhi
10, Sansad Marg
New Delhi-110001. …Opposite Party
Coram:
Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member
ORDER
Date of Institution : 16.03.2012
Date of Order : 18.10.2022
Member: Shri U.K.Tyagi
Complainant has requested to pass an order directing Standard Chartered Bank (hereinafter referred to as OP) that :- (i) to reduce the rate of interest (ROI) to 11% retrospectively w.e.f. 01.11.2010 and refund the excess amount charged on terms loan account and over draft Account; (ii) to refund the processing fee of Rs.1,25,000/-alongwith interest @11% from the date of receipt till date of refund (iii) to pay Rs.2 Lac towards compensation for harassment, mental agony etc. (iv) to pay a sum of Rs.35000/- as litigation charges etc.
Brief facts of the case are as under:-
The complainant was offered the term loan and facility of over draft by the representative of OP. On this, being convinced, the complainant opened two accounts under the above facilities of OP in 2008. In Oct. 2010, the said accounts were due for renewal. The complainant had several round of talks/negotiations and it was agreed upon to renew the above facilities at the rate of interest (ROI) 11%. Acrrodingly, Solution Manager of OP vide e-mail confirmed the rate of interest @11% vide e-mail dated 29.10.2010. The same is annexed at annexure EW/1. Thereafter, the complainant received sanction letter informing the confirmation of the above said facilities and further indicating ROI 11.25% (7.50% base rate +3.75% variable) contrary to the agreed rate of 11%. It was assured by the representative of OP to sign the same. However, the ROI shall be charged only 11% as agreed upon. On this assurance, he signed the letter. The some is annexed as annexure CW/2. The complainant also averred that his property bearing No. D-193, Lajpat Nagar-I was kept as collateral against the said loan security without his consent. The complainant approached the OP and lodged his objection on ROI as well as making his property as collateral security. The complainant was offered another proposal mentioning that ROI would be 11% on LAP and OD with additional LC (Letter of Credit)of INR 165 Lakhs and LER facility of INR 90 Lakhs only on the property which is already mortgaged with OP. OP neither reduced the rate of interest from 11.25% to 11% on the term loan and OD nor disbursed LC limit of Rs.165 Lakhs and LER (Forward Cover) of Rs.90 Lakhs. The complainant was informed by the OP vide its letter dated 23.09.2011 clarifying the position on ROI and processing fee. It was also alleged that OP further increased ROI from 11.25% to 14.75% within a year without the consent of the complainant. The copy of said letter is annexed as annexure CW/4. When the complainant approached OP for fore-closure of the accounts, he was asked to pay 2% on loan amount as pre-closed charges.
OP, on the other hand, filed reply interalia raising preliminary objections. It was averred that the complainant had never disputed the facts as he was well aware of the terms & conditions which were perused and signed by the complainant. The OP had acted in good faith and charged that amount on the basis of terms & conditions which were executed between OP and complainant. Based on the loan account under the category of SME LAP (Small Medium Enterprises – Loan Against Property) for the loan amount of Rs.1,89,00,000/- on 29.08.2008 and Rs.One Crore on 31.01.2012 whilst OD facility had been extended on 22.09.2008 for a credit limit of Rs.50 Lakhs. The same is exhibited on Ex-OP W1/1. The OP disputed the contention of complainant with regard to facts mentioned in complaint. The complainant had opted for the variable mode of interest. The OP further contended that the e-mail dated 29.10.2010 had seen misconstrued by the complainant for the purpose of creating the false cause of action. The wording of the said e-mail clearly indicates that 11% ROI on the renewed OD facility and existing TL was offered on the ground that complainant was availing the extended working capital facility from OP Bank. The complainant also signed the facility letter dated 01.10.2010 which clearly states that ROI against OD account will be 11.25%. The OP further averred that the facility letter and terms & conditions signed 02.11.2010 supercedes the offer revised interest rate as complainant had signed the contract subsequent to the said offer made on 29.10.2010. The said facility letter and negotiation held with OP Bank brings out clearly that the discussion were with respect to additional banking facilities i.e. LC for an amount of Rs.1.65 Crore and Forex Forward facility for an amount of Rs.90 Lakhs. However, these facilities were in existence since Oct. 2010. The allegations of complainant that OP Bank came with new proposal of extending LC and LER facility after 01.10.2010 are self-credited and baseless one as discussion of the same were in existence since Oct. 2010. The OP Bank had sanctioned working capital limit to the tune of Rs.2,55,00,000/-as per facility letter dated 19.10.2010. The OP has also explained the charging of processing charges of Rs.1,25,000/-. The same finds mention under clause 8 of facility letter as OP Bank has to incur expenditure on verification and validation of the income eligibility etc. so the processing fees had been levied. It was also averred that the LC and LER facility sanctioned to the complainant was withdrawn as the complainant failed to provide the pari-passu charge on the current assets from Jammu & Kashmir Bank within 30 days from the date of disbursal.
It is also stated that the complainant had opted for variable mode of interest as provided in clause 7 of the facility letter so different ROI was charged for the various years and complainant was informed accordingly. The pre-payment charge was also mentioned clearly in clause 2 of the said Facility Letter.
Both the parties have filed written submissions and evidence in-affidavit. Written statement is on record so is rejoinder. Arguments were heard and concluded. The case was fixed for arguments on 12.10.2021, 29.04.2022 and 08.06.2022, but complainant and his counsel failed to appear on said dates. Since it is an old case of 2012, hence, it was decided to conclude the case be decided on the basis of written submission and other materials on merits.
This Commission has gone into entire materials placed on record. Due regard was given to written submissions and oral arguments of complainant. It is seen that the complainant has advanced his grievance against the OP, where seems to be centred around the following:-
- To reduce the ROI to 11% retrospectively w.e.f. 01.11.2010.
- Processing fee of Rs.1,25,000/- was illegal.
As regards to ROI, same has been explained above elaborately. When the specific e-mail dated 29.10.2010 wherein the complainant has placed reliance primarily, was examined it talks about the ROI of 11% but also mentions about the extending working capital facilities. It was noted by the Commission that the same was superseded by another facility letter (Sanction letter) dated 19.11.2010. The said Facility Letter was signed and agreed upon by the complainant and OP Bank. There is no doubt that Facility Letter and terms & conditions are agreed upon by both the parties. The facility letter of latter date supercedes the earlier e-mail of 11.10.2010. It is only an e-mail whereas the facility letter of 19.11.2010 contains the detailed terms & conditions. This Commission believes that the facility letter/sanction letter carries more weight in the eyes of law. As regards to processing fee, the same finds mention in clause 2 of the said facility letter dated 18.11.2010 wherein the 2% charge for fore-closure has been provided. Hence, we feel that the complainant cannot escape the contractual liability.
In nutshell, after having the facts and circumstances in the matter and narrations made above, this Commission is of considered opinion that the complaint is devoid of merit and requests made therein are also rejected.
File be consigned to the record room after giving copy of the order to the parties as per rules.
