M/s.Dogra Rice Mills through its Partner Sh.Vijay Kumar complainant has filed the present complaint against the opposite party U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (for short, C.P.Act.) seeking necessary directions to the opposite party to refund the interest amount of Rs.56,437.50/- alongwith interest @ 18% P.A. from the date of filing of this complaint till its realization and litigation expenses of  Rs.15,000/- with costs and damages of  Rs.25,000/-  may please be imposed on the opposite party on account of mental pain and agony.

2.      The case of the complainant in brief is that  he is a businessman and running his Rice Mill as a partner under the name and style of M/s.Dogra Rice Mill at Batala Road, Qadian alongwith other three partners i.e. Sh.Vinod Kumar son of Sh.Jagmohan Lal, Sh.Loveleen Gupta and Sh.Mohit Gupta both sons of  Sh.Vijay Kumar. He and other partners have formed this partnership firm for earning their livelihood.  The abovesaid firm has made a cash credit account of Rs.2 crore @ 10.75% interest per annum with the opposite party for doing the business and he is properly maintaining the account. The cash credit account number of the firm is 55107186178. On 15.05.2013 the opposite party without intimating him has debited Rs.3,00,000/- from his account by alleging that he has not submitted the stock statement. When he came to know about the abovesaid debit of Rs.3,00,000/- from the firm’s account then he moved an application to the opposite party to know the reason why the opposite party has debited the amount and for the refund of the same, which was duly received by the opposite party on 16.5.2013. When the opposite party did not reply to the letter dated 16.05.2013 then he has again sent a reminder letter to the opposite party on 7.06.2013 and a copy of the same to the A.G.M. SBOP, Amritsar Head Office for refund of the amount but of no use. He has further pleaded that again when he received his account statement from the bank he came to know that the amount has not been refunded by the opposite party and an additional interest has also been charged on the amount debited by the opposite party, then he again moved an application to the opposite party for the refund of Rs.3,00,000/- alongwith interest which has been charged by the opposite party but again of no use. He again sent a reminder letter dated 17.12.2013 to the opposite party and copy to A.G.M, SBOP, Mall Road, Amritsar and Smt.Balbir Kaur Banking Lokpal, Sector 17,Chandigarh and  to this effect the opposite party for the first time responded to the multiple requests through letter dated 11.01.2014  in which opposite party has stated that the amount has been debited due to non submission of the stock statement and further they have taken up the matter to higher authorities for the refund of the same. On receipt of reply dated 17.12.2013 then he again moved a letter to Smt.Balbir Kaur, Banking Lokpal, Chandigarh on 20.1.2014, in which he has stated that he has made complaints to the opposite party for 5-6 times and to this effect he has received reply from the opposite party which was attached alongwith this letter and sent to the Banking Lokpal for doing the needful.  He again moved a letter to the opposite party in which he has again requested the opposite party to refund the amount alongwith interest on 6.08.2014 which was duly received by the opposite party but of no use and the opposite party always replied that the matter is pending with the higher authorities and amount will be refunded very soon. Ultimately on 11.2.2015 the opposite party has refunded Rs.3,00,000/- in his account but again the opposite party has failed to refund the amount of interest which the opposite party has charged for the debit of the amount in question. The interest on the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from 15.05.2013 to 11.02.2015 is approximately Rs.56,437.50/- which has been charged by the opposite on the debit amount. After the refund of the debit amount i.e. Rs.3,00,000/- he again visited to the opposite party for the refund of the interest amount charged by the opposite party but the opposite party refused to do so. Hence this complaint. 

3       Notice issued to the opposite party has not received back. Case called several times but none has come present on its behalf, therefore, it was proceeded against exparte vide order dated.03.09.2015.

 4.       In exparte evidence counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Vijay Kumar son of Jagmohan Lal Ex.C-1/A, alongwith other documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C21 and closed the evidence. 

5.       We have carefully examined the available evidence and its supporting documents produced on records by the complainant so as to interpret their meaning and purpose and also the scope of the prospective adverse inference likely to be drawn in the wake up of OP Bank preferring to be proceeded against ex-parte. We find that the complainant has been availing of the credit facility of Rs.20 Lac with the OP Bank who somehow allegedly debited (Ex.C1) a sum of Rs.3.0lac (sans pre-notice and post-intimation) in the complainant firm’s loan limit account on 15.05.2013 that later turned out to be penal charges levied on account of non-submission of requisite Stock Statements by the borrowing complainant firm, in compliance to the accepted terms and conditions of the related Sanction. The complainant firm readily objected (Ex.C2) to the above unceremonious entry of Rs.3.0 Lac and applied for its refund vide (Ex.C2) same letter dated 16.05.2013 duly succeeded by a regular but continuous follow up (as is evident from Ex.C3 to Ex.C20) till the OP Bank finally refunded (Ex.C21) the principal amount of (15.05.2013) levied penal charges of Rs.3.0 Lac on 11.02.2015 but without any refund of ‘interest’ for the intervening period of 1¾ years during which ‘interest’ at the documented rate was being continuously charged in the related Loan account. The non-appearance by the OP Bank before this Forum gives rise to the judicial presumption that they had no defense to prosecute and thus preferred to go in for the ex-parte proceedings. Moreover, the refund of penal charges itself indicates that the Branch’ action has not been approved/ratified by the Bank’s controlling office. We also find that the OP Bank did act in a customer - unfriendly haste n harshness that resulted in a subsequent ‘refund’ retrace and it shall be in the right order of equity if the ‘charged interest’ on the charged penal amount be also refunded. It appears as if the OP Bank Branch has been taking its decisions in isolation totally bereft of ‘legal advice’ that would have been readily available from its own controlling office/legal advisor/empanelled advocate etc. Such acts and omissions do add up to amount to ‘unfair trade practice’ and ‘deficiency in service’ under the Act and thus lining up the delinquent vulnerable to an adverse award under the Act.                

6.       In the light of the all above, while partly allowing the present complaint we hold the titled OP Bank as guilty of unfair trade practice/ deficiency in service and thus ORDER them to refund full interest as charged on the penal amount of Rs.3.0 Lac during the intervening period (i.e., from 15.05.2013 to 11.02.2015) to the complainant besides to pay him Rs.5,000/- as cost and compensation within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of these orders otherwise the aggregate awarded amount shall attract interest @ 9% P.A. from the date of orders till actually paid.

7.       Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to records.

                                                            (Naveen Puri)

                                                                      President

ANNOUNCED:                                            (Jagdeep Kaur)

October, 12 2015.                                                  Member                       

*MK*