Delhi

East Delhi

CC/879/2014

INDIAN OVERSEAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

STANDARD CHARTERED BANK - Opp.Party(s)

03 May 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO.  879/14

 

M/s. Indian Overseas Co. Pvt. Ltd.

Through Director Mr. Inder Chand Sharma

175, F.I.E., Patparganj Industrial Area

Delhi – 110 092                                                               ….Complainant

 

Vs.

 

M/s. Standard Chartered Bank

Through its Branch Manager

Aditya Arcade, 30, Community Centre

Preet Vihar, Delhi -110 092                                                   ….Opponent

 

Date of Institution: 19.09.2014

Judgment Reserved on: 03.05.2017

Judgment Passed on: 06.06.2017

 

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari  (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

JUDGEMENT

          This complaint has been filed by M/s. Indian Overseas Co. Pvt. Ltd. through Director Mr. Inder Chand Sharma, against M/s. Standard Chartered Bank (OP) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

2.       The facts in brief are that the complainant  is a company trading in electronic goods and had availed credit facilities from OP on following terms:-

1. There will be no charge on the bounce of outward clearing cheques.
2. There will be no charge on the cash deposit by you at any branch.
3. There is no foreclosing charge on overdraft facility.  However, if you choose to avail WCDL facility, any foreclosure of the same will attract a pre-payment penalty of 2% + service tax applicable.
4. The renewal charges would be Rs. 15,000/- respectively.
5. Processing fee of 0.5% includes the charges of Valuation, Title Search, Stamp papers. 

          It is stated that initially the credit facility of Rs. 2,30,00,000/- was issued on 14.12.2005, which was enhanced from time to time vide letters dated 28.07.2006, 28.05.2008, 22.08.2009, 28.10.2009, 03.11.2010, 15.06.2011 and 28.10.2011.  The complainant on 07.11.2012 requested OP for closure of credit facility.  An email dated 14.11.2012 seeking confirmation of closure of all trade facilities was replied by OP stating that foreclosure charges had been varied while renewal of the facility on 09.10.2012.  OP charged Rs. 8,98,880/- on 16.11.2012 on account of foreclosure charges.  Thus, the complainant has alleged deficiency in service thereby seeking refund of                 Rs. 8,98,880/- alongwith interest, Rs. 55,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony and Rs. 55,000/- as litigation expenses.

          Complainant has annexed letter mentioning terms and conditions, issued by OP.  Letter of banking arrangement dated 14.12.2005, letters dated 28.07.2006, 28.05.2008, 22.08.2009, 28.10.2009, 03.11.2010, 15.06.2011 and 28.10.2011 regarding enhancement of credit facility, letter for closure of the credit facility dated 07.11.2012, email and letter dated 14.11.2012 for closure of all trade facilities and zero foreclosure charges, letter dated 15.11.2012 to OP and copy of statement of account for the period 01.11.2012 to 10.12.2012.

3.       OP filed their reply upon service of the summons of the present complaint.  In their reply, they took the plea that the complainant had availed overdraft facility on contractual terms on yearly basis in December 2005, which was renewed and reviewed every year after issuance of fresh letter of banking agreement containing terms and conditions of the renewal.  It was submitted that the letter of banking agreement contained terms of facility, which included prepayment term as well, which was read over, signed and accepted by the complainant for all the previous years and for 28.10.2011 and 09.10.2012 as well. 

          It was further stated that prepayment charges were included in the year 2008 itself.  It was also stated that the prepayment charges of Rs. 8,98,880/- had been debited from the account of the complainant in accordance with the terms of contract.  Thus, no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice could be attributed on their part.  Rest of the contents of the complaint was denied. 

          Objection was also raised with respect to the nature of transaction between the complainant and OP.  It was stated that it was a commercial transaction inter se the parties, hence was outside the purview of the Consumer Protection Act.

          Letter of Banking arrangement have been annexed as Annexure OP-1

4.       Rejoinder was filed on behalf of the complainant.  It was stated that the complainant was never informed about the change in terms and conditions.  The complainant signed on the dotted lines believing in good faith that there was no change in the broad terms and conditions of the agreement.  Rest of the contents of the WS were denied and facts of the complaint were reiterated.

5.       Shri Inder Chand Sharma, Director of M/s. Indian Overseas Co. Pvt. Ltd. was examined on behalf of the complainant, who stated the contents of the complaint and reliance was placed on annexures annexed with it.

          OP examined Mr. Anand Prakash, constituted attorney of Standard Chartered Bank who deposed on oath the contents of the WS filed on behalf of OP. 

6.       We have heard the submissions on behalf of the Ld. Counsel for OP and have perused the material placed on record.  Letter of banking agreements have been filed by both the parties, which bears signatures of the director of the complainant on each page and alterations have also been endorsed with the signatures.  This implies that the terms and conditions mentioned in letter of banking agreement had been carefully vetted and thereafter signed.

          It is settled principle of law that the terms and conditions of the contract are binding on both the parties, which have to be strictly read.  Merely, taking a flimsy plea that the complainant was made to sign on the dotted line cannot absolve him from his responsibility of being cautious.  Thus, from the above discussion, no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice can be attributed on the part of OP.  They have acted as per the terms and conditions of the agreement.  Hence, the present complaint is dismissed being devoid of merits without orders to cost.     

          Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                            (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

       Member                                                     Member         

     

  

   (SUKHDEV SINGH)

             President