NCDRC

NCDRC

CC/12/2024

M/S KRM TYRES - Complainant(s)

Versus

STATE BANK OF INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

M/S. GLOBALCA LEGAL

26 Feb 2024

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

NEW DELHI

CONSUMER CASE NO. 12 OF 2024

1. M/S KRM TYRES HOUSE NO.2 BACKSIDE R K DHABA KAPURTHALA ROAD, BASTI BAWA KHEL, JALANDHAR CITY, PUNJAB JALANDHAR PUNJAB	...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. STATE BANK OF INDIA STATE BANK OF INDIA SAMB BRANCH, FIRST FLOOR, SCO-99-107, SECTOR-8C, CHANDIGARH-160018 CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH	...........Opp.Party(s)

BEFORE:
	HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. P. SAHI,PRESIDENT

FOR THE COMPLAINANT :

MR. NITIN KANWAR, ADVOCATE

FOR THE OPP. PARTY :

MR. RAJEEV KUMAR, ADVOCATE MR. ROHIT KUMAR GUPTA, ADVOCATE

Dated : 26 February 2024

ORDER

The Complainant, even though has given the address of Kapurthala Road, Jalandhar City, Punjab, it has stated that the Complainant is running the business of manufacturing tyres in district Solan. It has also been stated that the firm of the Complainant is an MSME firm that succeeded in its business within ten years touching a milestone of approximately Rs.100 crores turnover. The Complainant had obtained a cash credit/term-loan/ILC/FLC limits from the State Bank of India the Opposite Party herein. The complaint states that the Complainant has been dealing with the bank since 2007. It is stated that on 26.03.2014 a major fire broke out in the unit and the complete plant and machinery and entire stock was gutted. The Complainant states that efforts were made by the promoters to rehabilitate the manufacturing unit and the complete factory was rebuilt after making investments by the promoters and also taking finances from the open market. The contention of the Complainant is that the credit limit given by the bank was decreased by a huge amount which was a setback in spite of the fact that every condition imposed by the respondent bank was being complied with. The complaint then skips over by alleging that the sanctioned term-loan was not disbursed as per the terms of the sanction letter dated 13.06.2016.This sanction was with regard to installation of machinery for enhancement of the capacity of the factory but the same was not released and the sanction was withdrawn without assigning any reason. The complaint then alleges that under the sanction letter dated 06.04.2019, the limits were adjusted but reductions therein were carried out without giving any reasons. The Complainants needed additional funds but instead the reduction in CC limits were unjustifiably made by the Opposite Party bank.The Complainant requested for deferring the same but the bank did not accept the request for the same. It is then alleged that the Complainant had sought for a sanction of issuance of a bond to the tune of 50,000 U.S dollars for opening an office in the USA. It is urged that the bank renewed the loan account and provided the Complainant with a new sanction letter vide mail dated 17.10.2022. However, the credit limit of 50,000 dollars that was to be released was not proceeded with and the bank did not extend the said benefit. The Complainant alleges that they had to suffer losses as their consignments and goods were on hold. The Complainant has also alleged that this also resulted in loss of business in the US market because of the decisions of the bank. Other allegations have also been made coupled with an allegation against the bank for having malafidely exhibited the account of the Complainant as a non-performing asset since 30.06.2022.  The complaint alleges that in spite of repeated requests and offers the bank did not suitably act upon its promises and therefore this amounts to a serious deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party bank.  The nature of the allegations made and the contentions advanced are sought to be supported with submissions that the present complaint is maintainable and is not for a commercial purpose hence the complaint deserves to be entertained. Learned Counsel has relied on Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and it is urged that the services hired from the bank having not been rendered, gives a cause of action for raising a consumer complaint.  Learned Counsel has then invited the attention of the Bench to Paragraph 45 of the judgment in the case of Shrikant G. Mantri Vs. Punjab National Bank 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 197 and has also urged that the Complainant is a partnership firm where partners are the real owners of the assets of the firm. He therefore submits that the ratio of the judgment in the case of Shrikant G. Mantri (Supra) would not apply inasmuch as in that case the concerned person was a stockbroker already engaged in that profession much before he availed the services of overdraft facility.  Having considered the submissions raised as well as the written arguments, it is evident that this complaint has been drafted in a manner alleging breach of certain financial arrangements made by the bank with regard to cash credit limit that was reduced. The bank also has the authority to exercise the Cancel Ability Clause by either partially or fully cancelling any such facilities under the terms provided in respect thereof. This is not failure in service. The transaction is clearly for commercial purposes in order to provide finances to the Complainant firm for running its industry. This is not a case of earning livelihood by self-employment or for personal use. According to the own case of the Complainants, they established this business in the year 2007 and was running from long before. It is only after the fire incident that took place that the bank is alleged to have acted unjustifiably by reducing the cash credit limit and not allowing the other facilities as mentioned above. It is therefore the case of the Complainant that this action of the bank amounted to deficiency in service. Having perused the documents on record, and having considered the written submissions and the judgments referred to therein, this is not a case of any failure of service amounting to a deficiency in relation to a subject matter falling within the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and is purely a dispute with regard to the arrangement of finances of the Complainant with the Opposite Party bank. There is nothing to demonstrate that there is a deficiency in service or breach so as to allow this complaint to be treated as a consumer complaint, inasmuch as all financial disputes are not to be addressed by the consumer forum more particularly when such acute questions of disputable facts regarding an alleged breach are involved. The nature of the allegations are only pointing out towards the alleged losses suffered and lessening of profits in a business venture. The Consumer Forum is not available for the adjudication of such disputes which can always be raised before the appropriate Forum in accordance with law. There is no material to establish that there is any breach by the bank so as to qualify as deficiency in service on account of any breach of concluded contract and the facility being only to enable an investor to increase his profits cannot be a ground to entertain such a grievance under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The complaint therefore is not entertainable in the light of the facts stated above and is therefore not maintainable as a consumer complaint within the 2019 Act. The complaint is accordingly dismissed without prejudice to the rights of the Complainant to approach the appropriate Forum for the redressal of its grievances.

.........................J

A. P. SAHI

PRESIDENT