BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Dr.Gaurav Singla, M.B.B.S. M.S. Proprietor Keshav Multispecialty Hospital, R/0 # 2550, Sector 37-C, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

                 V E R S U S

[1]  State Bank of India, through its Manager, Sector 17, Chandigarh.

[2]  State Bank of India, through its Manager, Zirakpur, Distt. SAS Nagar, Mohali.

                        ……Opposite Parties

CORAM:   SH.P.D.GOEL                      PRESIDENT

          SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL           MEMBER

          DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA     MEMBER

Argued by: Sh.Vinod Chaudhri, Counsel for Complainant.

           Sh.Saurav Goyal, Counsel for OPs.          

PER SH.P.D. GOEL, PRESIDENT

          As per the averments made in the complaint, the complainant is a reputed surgeon and applied for a loan of Rs.20.00 lacs for the promotion of his profession. The loan was sanctioned by OP No.1 for Rs.20.00 lacs but the complainant availed only Rs.18.00 lacs and when the complainant approached the OPs for the remaining amount of Rs.2.00 lacs, he was refused for grant of balance amount for the reasons of delay in asking the remaining amount. The monthly EMI was fixed at Rs.37,600/- and it was settled keeping in view the repayment schedule of 7 years. It is alleged that the complainant had paid processing fee as per the requirements of the bank before the loan was sanctioned, but he was shocked to read the statement of account wherein the bank arbitrarily and without any reason levied hidden charges against the norms & rules of the bank and one such charge is named as ‘inspection charge’ of Rs.10,000/- levied every year. The complainant was charged twice w.r.t. inspection charges of Rs.10,000/- each with interest accrued on it and debited the same in the loan account of the complainant. The complainant visited many times to the OPs for refund and correction but all requests have fallen on deaf ears. Hence this complaint.

2.        The OPs in their reply, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, pleaded that there is no written request on the part of the complainant for release of remaining amount of Rs.2 lacs. In fact complainant never approached with a request for release of said amount with the OPs. It is submitted EMI were decided at the time of sanctioning of loan with a presumption that complainant will avail the entire loan amount as sanctioned to him and as such the same cannot be reduced just on the asking of the complainant. It is further submitted that there is no clause or provision of the agreement of loan that the EMI will be adjusted according to availing of the loan by the complainant later on. It is further submitted that there is no hidden charges levied by the bank. As per rules at clause No.9 of the sanction letter, the cost of inspection shall be borne by loanee, hence the complainant has agreed that he will make the payment of the inspection done by the official of the bank at his premises situated at Zirakpur, from time to time. The amount of Rs.10,000/- levied every year as inspection charges is totally legal and genuine. The inspection charges are debited in the account once in a year and they become part of the loan, therefore, the interest is charged accordingly. Denying all other allegations made in the complaint the OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

3.        Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4.        We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

5.        The case of the Complainant is that OP No.1 sanctioned loan of Rs.20.00 lacs, but he availed only Rs.18.00 lacs. It is the grouse of the Complainant that he was shocked to know that the Bank had arbitrarily levied hidden charges – inspection charges of Rs.10,000/- every year. The amount of Rs.10,000/- charged per annum as inspection charges is stated to be illegal.

6.        The OP – Bank has raised the defence that there are no hidden charges and in fact, as per Clause 9 of the sanction letter, the cost of inspection is to be borne by the Complainant, to which he (Complainant) agreed also. The amount of Rs.10,000/- levied every year, as inspection charges, is legal and genuine. As such, the same were debited to his account every year.

7.        Now, the sole question to be decided by this Forum is whether the demand of Rs.10,000/- on account of inspection charges levied every year by the OPs is legal. The answer to this is in the affirmative.  

8.        Annexure C-1 is the letter of arrangement dated 10.01.2008, which admittedly bears the signatures of the Complainant. The same has not been challenged by the Complainant. Clause 9 thereof pertains to inspections and careful scrutiny of its relevant portion makes it clear that the inspection is to be permitted in the factory/ business premises as and when required to inspect the stocks/ equipments. All assistance to be extended to the Bank’s officials in conducting and completing such inspections smoothly. The cost of such inspection shall be borne by the loanee and in this case by the Complainant.

9.        Annexure R-15 is a master circular and on page 49, it has been specifically laid down that upto Rs.25,000/- the inspection charges are ‘Nil’ and over Rs.25,000/- and upto Rs.2 lacs Rs.500/- p.a. and above Rs.2 lacs but upto to Rs.5 crore Rs.500/- per lac p.a. for inspection within same municipal limits with a max. of Rs.12000/- p.a.     

10.       Admittedly, the Complainant has availed the loan facility to the tune of Rs.18.00 lacs, against the sanctioned loan of Rs.20.00 lacs. Therefore, as per page 49 of Master Circular (R-15), the OPs had the legal right to charge the inspection charges of Rs.10,000/- per annum. As such, the said charges cannot be considered to be hidden charges, especially when the Complainant is signatory to the letter of arrangement (C-1), referred to above, wherein it has been specifically stated vide Clause 9 that the Bank had a right to inspect the equipment and the cost of inspection shall be borne by the Complainant. 

11.       To prove that the officials of the OP Bank had inspected the premises of the Complainant, the OP – Bank has placed on record the inspection reports Annexure R-6 to R-14 respectively, which go unrebutted and uncontroverted from the Complainant’s side, which further prove that the officials of the OP Bank did make the inspection of the equipment installed in the premises of the Complainant.

12.       In this view of the matter, it is held that the OP Bank had every right to ask the Complainant to pay the inspection charges of Rs.10,000/- p.a. As such, it is held that the inspection charges levied by the OP Bank and debited in the account of the Complainant are not illegal; rather, the same are legal and genuine.

13.       As a result of the above discussion, it is held that the Complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the OP, with the result, the complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.      

14.       Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.