Punjab

Faridkot

CC/16/196

Mithu Battery House - Complainant(s)

Versus

State Bank of Patiala - Opp.Party(s)

Dinesh Jindal

12 Jun 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

Complaint No. :          196

Date of Institution :    20.07.2016

Date of Decision :       12.06.2017

 

Mithu Battery House, Bathinda Road, Near Truck Operator Union, Jaitu.  Tehsil Jaitu, District Faridkot through its Proprietor/Authorised person Suriya Rani aged about 59 years, w/o late Jaswant Rai.                    

                 .....Complainant

Versus

1. State Bank of Patiala, Main Bazar, Jaitu, Tehsil Jaitu, District Faridkot through its Proprietor/Authorised Person.
2. State Bank of Patiala, Zonal Office, Bathinda through its Zonal Chairman/Authorised Person.
3. State Bank of Patiala, Head and Regd. Office, The Mall, Patiala, Tehsil and District Patiala through its Chairman/ Managing Director/ Director, General Manager/ Manager/Authorised Person.            

               ......OPs

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum:     Sh Ajit Aggarwal, President,

Sh P Singla, Member.

Present:       Sh Neeraj Maheshwari, Ld Counsel for Complainant,

 Sh Madan Lal Bansal, Ld Counsel for OPs.

 

ORDER

(Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                                      Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OPs seeking directions to OPs to withdraw OD Penalty till date and to pay Rs.20,000/-as compensation for harassment and Rs.5500/-as litigation expenses to complainant.

2                                     Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant is having a cash credit limit account bearing no.65111790125 with Ops Bank for about last five years and she has always fulfilled all the terms and conditions and formalities regarding his account with Bank. Earlier the limit for cash credit was for Rs.80,00,000/-, but now on request of complainant, it is reduced to Rs.62,00,000/-. It is submitted that after death of Jaswant Rai, son of Lal Chand on 10.05.2015, who was the previous proprietor of this Firm, his wife, the present complainant became the proprietor and she wrote a letter dt 16.07.2015 intimating about the death of her husband or previous proprietor of Mithu Battery Firm to OP-1. It is further submitted that after the death of her husband, OP-1 pressurised complainant to clear the limit account and accordingly, complainant deposited amount on different dates and now, only Rs.3,73,000/-are pending towards  complainant. It is submitted that Ops have charged OD Penalties many times. Despite repeated requests by complainant, Ops have not withdrawn the OD penalties and lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other and say that these OD penalties and all other extra or hidden charges will be settled at the time of final settlement of account. While inspecting the account statement, complainant came to know that some extra charges are charged by Ops from complainant as inspection charges and OD penalties  of Rs.1,52,892/- till April-2016. Complainant approached OP-1 and told that inspection charges are accepted, but OD penalties are not as per rules and regulations of Ops, but they did not give any response to this. It is submitted that OD Penalties are hidden expenses charged in arbitrary manner and were never disclosed to complainant and it is exploitation of customer. On 23.09.2014 complainant wrote letter to OP-1 to refund the OD Penalties, but  they did not do so and despite paying many visits and making many requests, Ops did not refund the OD Penalties though they orally said that OD Penalties are charged as stock statement of complainant was not appropriate, but complainant have always submitted correct stock statements at correct time with Ops, but Ops never gave any receipt of documents submitted by complainant or her employees. OD Penalties of Rs.1,52,892/- from April 2016 are still continuing. Complainant has made many requests to Ops to withdraw the OD Penalties, but there is no settlement of these penalties pertaining to limit account of complainant. All this has caused great harassment and mental torture to complainant and it amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Complainant has also prayed for compensation and litigation expenses along with main relief. Hence, the complaint.

3                                   Ld Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 20.07.2016, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

4                                   On receipt of the notice, OPs filed written statement          taking preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable in present form as Proprietorship concern is not a legal person and same comes to an end with the death of Proprietor and therefore, it is not maintainable in present form. Moreover, complainant is not competent to file the present complaint as she is not authorised by Firm to file the same. It is averred that complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint and complainant does not fall within the definition of consumer and even this Forum has not jurisdiction to hear and try the present complaint. Moreover, complainant has concealed the material facts from this Forum and has not come to the Forum with clean hands and he has not impleaded necessary parties in this complaint. However, on merits, Ops have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect but admitted that Jaswant Rai was having cash credit limit account with their bank. It is asserted that as per terms and conditions of cash credit limit, the borrower is to route the sale proceeds of business through cash credit limit account and not to open any current account in any other bank and has to submit financial data alongwith stock inventories from time to time to get the limit renewed every year, but in present complaint case, Jaswant Rai, Proprietor failed to route the sale proceeds through cash credit limit account and complainant also did not submit his financial data and stock inventories and thus limit remained over and account became NPA on 29.06.2016 and after death of Jaswant Rai, his legal heirs failed to adjust the cash credit limit account and even they opened a new current account in the name of complainant firm in Canara Bank, Jaitu and started routing the sale proceeds and transactions through current account in Canara Bank and Cash Credit Limit Account became Special Mention Account, being credit not served for 30 days and Cash Credit Limit was not renewed in time and thus Cash Credit Limit Account of  Firm remained irregular on various dates and system debited penalties and borrower Jaswant Singh since deceased confirmed his liability by executing Balance and Security Confirmation letter dt 17.01.2015 and acknowledged correctness of account balance as was outstanding and therefore, present complainant cannot challenge the same and also she is not the consumer of answering Ops. After death of Jaswant Rai, his legal heirs failed to liquidate the account. As after death of proprietor of the firm, the limit cannot be availed by legal heirs or any other proprietor, the legal heirs even failed to submit the fresh documents for new limit in the name of new proprietor despite repeated requests by Op-1 and instead of submitting new documents, his legal heir opened new current account  and started routing the sale proceeds through that current account and also using the saving bank account of Raj Kumar son for business purpose. Moreover, after death of Jaswant Rai, Proprietorship concern has come to an end, and complainant is not the consumer of Ops. It is further averred that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of answering opposite party. All other allegations and the allegation with regard to relief sought too were refuted with a prayer that complaint may be dismissed with costs against the answering opposite party.

5                                                  Parties wanted to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings and proper opportunity was given to them. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to C-8 and then, closed his evidence.

6                                              In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Counsel for OP tendered in evidence affidavit of Sudhanshu Kumar, Chief Manager as Ex. OP-1 and documents Ex OP-2 to 14 and then, closed the evidence.

7                                                 We have heard learned counsel for parties and have very carefully perused the affidavits & documents placed on the file by parties.

8                                  Ld Counsel for complainant argued that complainant is having a cash credit limit account bearing no.65111790125 with Ops Bank for about last five years and she has always fulfilled all the terms and conditions and formalities regarding his account with Bank. Earlier the limit for cash credit was for Rs.80,00,000/-, but now on request of complainant, it is reduced to Rs.62,00,000/-. It is submitted that after death of Jaswant Rai, son of Lal Chand on 10.05.2015, who was the previous proprietor of this Firm, his wife, the present complainant became the proprietor and she wrote a letter dt 16.07.2015 intimating about the death of her husband or previous proprietor of Mithu Battery Firm to OP-1. It is further submitted that after the death of her husband, OP-1 pressurised complainant to clear the limit account and accordingly, complainant deposited amount on different dates and now, only Rs.3,73,000/-are pending towards  complainant. It is submitted that Ops have charged OD Penalties many times. Despite repeated requests by complainant, Ops have not withdrawn the OD penalties and lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other and say that these OD penalties and all other extra or hidden charges will be settled at the time of final settlement of account. While inspecting the account statement, complainant came to know that some extra charges are charged by Ops from complainant as inspection charges and OD penalties  of Rs.1,52,892/- till April-2016. Complainant approached OP-1 and told that inspection charges are accepted, but OD penalties are not as per rules and regulations of Ops, but they did not give any response to this. It is submitted that OD Penalties are hidden expenses charged in arbitrary manner and were never disclosed to complainant and it is exploitation of customer. On 23.09.2014 complainant wrote letter to OP-1 to refund the OD Penalties, but  they did not do so and despite paying many visits and making many requests, Ops did not refund the OD Penalties though they orally said that OD Penalties are charged as stock statement of complainant was not appropriate, but complainant have always submitted correct stock statements at correct time with Ops, but Ops never gave any receipt of documents submitted by complainant or her employees. OD Penalties of Rs.1,52,892/- from April 2016 are still continuing. Complainant has made many requests to Ops to withdraw the OD Penalties, but there is no settlement of these penalties pertaining to limit account of complainant. All this has caused great harassment and mental torture to complainant and it amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Complainant has also prayed for compensation along with main relief and stressed on documents Ex C-1 to 8.

9                                               Ld counsel for complainant has placed on record copy of ledger of Mithu Battery House Ex C-2 clearly showing the fact that Rs.1,53,072.63 were debited by Ops on account of Over Draft Penalty, Ex C-3 copy of Adhar Card showing that being wife of Jaswant Rai, she is his legal heir. Ex C-4 is the statement of account of Mithu Battery House, which clearly reflect the amounts charged as overdraft penalties. Ex C-7 is the application written by complainant to Ops with request to change proprietor name from Jaswant Singh to Suriya Rani and Ex C-8 also shows the entries where Ops debited the amount on account of overdraft penalties.

10                                       To controvert the arguments of complainant counsel, ld counsel for OPs argued that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OPs and asserted that complaint is not maintainable in present form as Proprietorship concern is not a legal person and same comes to an end with the death of Proprietor and therefore, it is not maintainable in present form. Moreover, complainant is not competent to file the present complaint as she is not authorised by Firm to file the same. It is averred that complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint and complainant does not fall within the definition of consumer and even this Forum has not jurisdiction to hear and try the present complaint. Moreover, complainant has concealed the material facts from this Forum and has not come to the Forum with clean hands and he has not impleaded necessary parties in this complaint. However, it is admitted that Jaswant Rai was having cash credit limit account with their bank. It is asserted that as per terms and conditions of cash credit limit, the borrower is to route the sale proceeds of business through cash credit limit account and not to open any current account in any other bank and has to submit financial data alongwith stock inventories from time to time to get the limit renewed every year, but in present complaint case, Jaswant Rai, Proprietor failed to route the sale proceeds through cash credit limit account and complainant also did not submit his financial data and stock inventories and thus limit remained over and account became NPA on 29.06.2016 and after death of Jaswant Rai, his legal heirs failed to adjust the cash credit limit account and even they opened a new current account in the name of complainant firm in Canara Bank, Jaitu and started routing the sale proceeds and transactions through current account in Canara Bank and Cash Credit Limit Account became Special Mention Account, being credit not served for 30 days and Cash Credit Limit was not renewed in time and thus Cash Credit Limit Account of  Firm remained irregular on various dates and system debited penalties and borrower Jaswant Singh since deceased confirmed his liability by executing Balance and Security Confirmation letter dt 17.01.2015 and acknowledged correctness of account balance as was outstanding and therefore, present complainant cannot challenge the same and also she is not the consumer of answering Ops. After death of Jaswant Rai, his legal heirs failed to liquidate the account. As after death of proprietor of the firm, the limit cannot be availed by legal heirs or any other proprietor, the legal heirs even failed to submit the fresh documents for new limit in the name of new proprietor despite repeated requests by Op-1 and instead of submitting new documents, his legal heir opened new current account  and started routing the sale proceeds through that current account and also using the saving bank account of Raj Kumar son for business purpose. Moreover, after death of Jaswant Rai, Proprietorship concern has come to an end, and complainant is not the consumer of Ops. It is further averred that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of answering opposite party. All other allegations are refuted with prayer to dismiss the complaint.

11                                            The case of complainant is that her husband was having cash credit limit account with Ops bank and after his death, being his legal heir, she intimated Ops regarding death of her husband and for change of name of proprietor. As per complainant, after death of her husband, Ops pressurised her to clear the cash credit limit account and therefore she deposited amount on various dates and only Rs3,73,000/-are due towards their firm. it is submitted that while going through the account statements of firm with Ops, she came to know that Ops have charged unnecessary over draft penalties. Grievance of complainant is that these overdraft penalties charged by Ops are illegal and repeated requests made by her to clear these charges bore no fruit. In reply, Ops have denied all the allegations of complainant and even refused to admit that she is their consumer. Contention of Ops is that after death of Jaswant Rai, his cash credit limit account became irregular and overdraft penalties are charged as per rules as his cash credit limit account was not renewed by his legal heirs. It is also contended by Ops that instead of clearing the amount of cash credit limit account, complainant got opened a new current account with Canara bank and started routing the sale proceeds of firm through that account.

  12                                                    From the careful perusal of record, evidence and documents placed on file and going through the pleadings of parties, it is observed that contention of Ops that after death of Jaswant Rai, his legal heir did not approach Bank to renew the  cash credit limit account. This contention of Ops has no legs to stand upon in the light of application dt 16.07.2015 filed by complainant Suriya Rani, which clearly shows that complainant made written request to Ops to change the proprietor of M/s Mithu Battery House, in account number 65111790125, which was in the name of Jaswant Rai, her late husband. Moreover, on the face of it, the documents Ex C-2, C-4 and C-8 clear the point that Ops have charged overdraft penalties. It is further observed that allegation of Ops that complainant got opened a new current in Canara Bank, Jaitu and started routing the sale proceeds of business through that bank is not  appropriate as she opened a current account with Canara Bank under compelling circumstances, when they refused to admit her as proprietor of present firm and did not allow her to avail the cash credit facility for business transactions. Moreover, from the account statements produced by complainant, there is no entry in the record which shows that complainant firm has exceeded the cash credit limit of their account and when they have never exceeded the cash credit limit of their cash credit limit account, then there is no ground to charge over draft and over draft penalties. Ld counsel for complainant contended that Ops never asked for stock inventories from complainant and even there is no letter from Ops side towards complainant that they require stock inventories. Complainant has fully abided by all the terms and conditions of cash credit limit account and has also deposited amount with Ops from time to time.

13                         From the above discussion and evidence produced on record, this Forum is of considered opinion that complainant has succeeded in proving her case. Therefore, complaint in hand is herby allowed. Ops are directed to  withdraw the Over Draft Penalties  of Rs.1,52,892/-on cash credit limit account bearing no.65111790125 and are further directed to pay Rs.5000/-as compensation for harassment and inconvenience suffered by her besides Rs.2000/-as litigation expenses. Compliance of this order be made within one month of the receipt of the copy of the order, failing which complainant shall be entitled to proceed under Section 25 and 27 of Consumer Protection Act. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of costs as per law. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Forum:

Dated: 12.06.2017

Member                          President                        (P Singla)                       (Ajit Aggarwal)