Sri Kamal De, President

The case of the complainant in short is that the complainant initially availed cash credit loan facility from the OP Bank to the tune of limit of Rs. 10 Laks on 10.07.2009 as working capital for running his readymade garments business at a rate of interest of Rs.11.75% on daily products with monthly rests. The Op Bank also opened a loan account no. 30819449283 in the name of the complainant’s firm through which the complainant has been depositing the sale proceeds of business on regular basis. The OP Bank also issued a sanction letter on 10.07.2009. The Op Bank violating the terms of sanction letter has debited the amount as stated in the complaint petition amounting Rs.121040/-. In the meantime, the OP Bank also received the said amount by enhancing the loan limit to the tune of Rs.15 Laks on 20.12.2013. The complainant has been maintaining the said cash credit loan account regularly. The OP- Bank violating the terms of sanction debited the said amount illegally. The complainant has been approaching the OP Bank time and again to make regular of his loan amount which the OP Bank debited illegally but to no good.

The cause of action of the case arose on and from 20.02.2014. The complainant has prayed for refund of the money amounting to Rs.121040/- alongwith compensation of Rs.20000/- for loss, injury and mental agony.

The OP Bank filed W/V challenging the case of the complainant contending interalia that the instant case is not maintainable in its present form and prayer. It is stated that the OP at the request of the complainant agreed to grant the petitioner’s cash credit loan of Rs.10 Laks on 10.07.2009 together with interest and subsequently the limit of the said loan is enhanced to Rs.15 Laks on 20.05.2011. Smt. Purnima Dhara, wife of the complainant created equitable mortgage of her properties alongwith title deeds. She stood as guarantor of the OP and jointly and summarily liable for due payment. In the sanction letter it is specifically stated that the OP Bank has right to debit various charges from the complainant’s loan account. It is also alleged that OP never debited any amount illegally from the complainant’s loan account as alleged in the complaint and the complainant failed and neglected to abide by the terms and conditions agreed upon. Due to nonpayment of regular installment amount, the complainant’s aforesaid account was declared N.P.A. It is also stated that the complainant has no cause of action to file the instant case against the OP and the complainant’s case is liable to be dismissed without any cost.  

Perused the complaint, W/V, documents filed from both the parties, Written Arguments on the respective sides and other materials on record.

It appears that the complainant has filed this case against OP Bank seeking refund of fund in his loan account no. 30819449283 under the name and style ‘Baba Loknath Dresses’. The complainant has also filed details of amount which have been deducted as against his loan account in his Written Notes on Argument. The deduction of detail of amount has not been opposed from the side of OP Bank, anywhere either in the WNA or in W/V. It is argued from the side of the OP Bank that the processing charges, inspection charges, equitable mortgage charges, pending interest charges, Cheque book issue charges, Cheque return charges, account keeping charges, searching fee charges have been debited as per terms and condition of the sanction letter. Seen the letter of arrangement on record. I am afraid some of the relevant columns about the charges have been rendered vacant, i.e. not duly filled in from the side of the Bank. It is, however, argued from the side of the OP Bank that the charges come under the purview of incidental expenses incurred in connection with the account, but the Forum is of the opinion that the incidental expenses have not been defined as sprecified in the arrangement letter. The Forum is of opinion that loan proceeding charges will be granted once at the time of granting loan. But we find that such charges have been debited years together without any prior information to the complainant and the amount of such charges also vary from year to year. It is also appearing that inspection charges have been debited in almost regular courses. It also appears that the OP Bank has also debited amount under the head ‘Account Keeping Charges’, Cheque Book issue charges, Cheque return charges, etc. The Forum is of opinion that such deduction of amount of various charges is beyond the stipulation of the letter of arrangement. We also find that Rasmecc AARC Processing Charges is deducted more than once. The OP-Bank has not also filed or cited any document to impress this contact that such deduction is made according to RBI rules or guidelines.

We find justification and substance of the complaint petition. We think that the debit or deduction of amount in the aforesaid loan account on various dates has been unjustified under the following dates and head and amount as furnished below:

12.03.2010 - Account Keeping Fees for Rs.550/-, 11.11.2010 – Process fees for Rs.5000/-, 12.03.2011 - Account Keeping Fees for Rs.550/-, 16.03.2011- Inspection charges for Rs.5000/-, 22.03.2011- Loan Processing Charges for Rs.5000/-, 22.02.2012- Loan Processing Charges for Rs.14000/-, 12.03.2012- Account Keeping Fees for Rs.550/-, 30.03.2012-Processing Charges for Rs.7500/-, 16.03.2013- Inspection Charges for Rs.3750/-, 07.05.2013 - TFR Rasmecc/SARC Searching Fees for Rs.2000/-, 14.01.2014- Balance of Searching for Rs.1000/-, 12.03.2014- Keeping Fees for Rs.550/-, 16.03.2014- Inspection Charges for Rs.3750/-, 13.12.2014- Rasmecc AARC Processing Charges of Rs. 4500/- , Totaling to Rs.53,700/-.

The Forum is of opinion that such deduction as stated above is beyond the terms and condition of the letter of arrangement between the parties. We do not think that such deductions do come under the purview of incidental expenses incurred in connection with the loan advancement of the petitioner. The Bank OP has no right to debit such various charges as mentioned above and we think that such deduction is made arbitrarily and there is no provision in the sanction letter for deduction of such charges in the complainant’s loan account. It is argued by the ld. Lawyer appearing for the complainant that the complainant is an uneducated rural person having no knowledge in English and he has been compelled to sign the printed sanction letter. Be that as it my, we think that the amount debited as stated in the earlier paragraph is arbitrary causing hardship to the complainant.

The case of the complainant merits, success in part accordingly.

Hence,

Ordered

          that the CC case being no. CC/8/2015 be and the same is allowed on contest against the OP. OP-State Bank of India, is directed to refund an amount of Rs. 53,700/- to the complainant alongwith compensation of Rs.2000/- to the complainant for mental agony caused to the complainant and also litigation cost of Rs.4000/- within 30 days from the date of passing this order, in default the complainant will be at liberty to proceed with execution of the order in accordance to the appropriate provision of law under Consumer Protection Act, 1986, in such case, interest @ 9% p.a. shall be imposed upon the total amount payable by the OP, until actually paid.