Haryana

StateCommission

A/774/2016

RAM KANWAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

SYNDICATE BANK - Opp.Party(s)

NEERAJ GUPTA

17 Jul 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

                                                First Appeal No.774 of 2016

Date of the Institution: 24.08.2016

Date of Decision: 17.07.2017

 

Ram Kanwar S/o Shri Shyamlal, r/o Village Tej Nagar, P.O. Patli, Distt. Gurgaon, Haryana.

                                                                                .….Appellant

Versus

Syndicate Bank, Yadav Bhawan,railway Road, Haili Mandi,Gurgaon through its Sr.Manager or authorized person.

CORAM:    Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member

                    Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.Neeraj Gupta, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr.Randeep Singh, Advocate counsel for the respondent.

 

O R D E R

R.K.Bishnoi, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

          It was alleged by complainant that he applied for term loan of Rs.Two crores with opposite party vide application submitted in August 2009.  He paid Rs.2500/- for legal expenses and Rs.15,000/- for valuation and estimation  of construction cost etc. to process the file.  The file should have been processed maximum within the period of 20 days, but, the same was not sanctioned till the month of March 2010.  Resultantly he approached Canara Bank and his loan was sanctioned within 30 days.  O.Ps. sanctioned his loan vide letter dated 06.03.2010 i.e. after about seven months. Vide letter dated 29.04.2010 he was asked by O.ps. to complete formalities whereas information was already given that he had already obtained loan facility from other bank.  Despite that Rs.1,04,785/- were deducted as 50% of service charges from his account without his consent and they be directed to refund that amount alongwith compensation as prayed for.

2.      O.ps. filed reply controverting his averments an  alleged that he submitted gift deed on 16.02.2010 executed by one Sadwa in favour of wife of complainant on 10.02.2010 donating Rs.44,00,000/- required  as margin money for the loan.  On 10.02.2010 he submitted letter written by his wife vide which she gave that amount to his husband i.e. complainant.  All those documents were sent to O.P.No.2 and his loan was sanctioned  on 05.03.2010 and letter of sanction dated 05.03.2010 was handed over to him on 08.03.2010 at Kishan Mela.  He himself did not obtain loan sanctioned by them and applied for loan with Canara Bank on 25.03.2010. Payment of service charges was clearly mentioned in sanction letter. As per rule they were entitled for 50% of service charges at the time of processing of loan. So afore-said amount was rightly deducted from his account. Objections about maintainability of complaint, referring matter to civil court etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss complaint.

3.      After hearing both the parties, learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon (in short “District Forum”) allowed the complaint vide impugned order dated 27.05.2016 and directed as under:-

“Therefore, we allow the present complaint and direct the Ops to charge 25% of the process fee instead of 50% in view of revision of rates and to refund the excess amount charged by them along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the present complaint 06.10.2010 till realization. The complainant is also entitled to compensation for harassment and mental agony as well as litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.10,000/-.”

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, complainant has preferred this appeal with request to refund entire amount.

5.      Arguments heard. File perused.

6.      Learned counsel for O.Ps. vehemently argued that Rs.89,509/- are already received by complainant on 10.08.2016, so he is not entitled for any other relief.  Even otherwise as per clause-9 of letter of sanction Annexure E it is clear that they were entitled for service charges as per head quarter circular NO.198/2008/BC. So services charges were rightly deducted from his account and appeal be dismissed.

7.      This argument is of no avail. It is very much mentioned in this letter that before letter of sanction consent of borrower be obtained about terms and conditions. For ready reference the said clause No.8 is reproduced as under:-

“The letter of sanction containing the above terms should be made available to the borrower and his/her acceptance should be obtained.”

          This clause clearly shows that if consent is given by borrower only then these terms and conditions are applicable.  It is no-where proved by O.Ps. that complainant ever accepted these terms and conditions.  Unless the consent is given bank cannot debit amount unilaterally. When  O.ps. did not sanction loan for such a long time, complainant was forced to go to other bank.  Further, complainant has not accepted the payment as full and final settlement. He has accepted this amount as per orders of District Forum. He did not give up his right to recover remaining amount. Had it been mentioned in this receipt that this amount has been  received as full and final settlement then it could have been a different matter. One cannot be asked not to accept payment till the matter is settled finally because the matter may remain pending for fairly long time.  Impugned order dated  27.05.2016 is modified to the extent that complainant is entitled to recover the entire amount of Rs.1,04,785/- deducted from his account as alleged in the complaint besides other compensation granted by District Forum. Amount already received by complainant be adjusted at the time of final payment.

 

July 17th, 2017                      Urvashi Agnihotri                             R.K.Bishnoi,                                                             Member                                              Judicial Member                                                       Addl. Bench                                       Addl.Bench               

S.K.