(Per Hon’ble Shri Narendra Kawde, Member)
(1) Complainant is a small scale industrial unit engaged in designing, engineering, manufacturing and supplying of materials handling equipment on turnkey basis. The complainant is banking with the opponent, Union Bank of India, Goregaon Branch, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as “Opponent Bank”) and availing cash credit and other facilities extended by the Opponent Bank since quite long time. Opponent Bank sanctioned credit limit by letter dated 07/04/2000 for execution of projects at Sikka, Jamnagar, Gujarat. The credit limit was for the period of 15 months. Regular credit of `95 lacs and adhoc credit of `190 lacs was sanctioned and communicated by the said letter with rate of interest thereon @16.32% p.a. Reserve Bank of India announced waiver of interest on the credit facility for execution of work in earthquake area of Gujarat thereby stipulating the conditions that the measures indicated in the scheme were applicable to the earthquake affected persons in the districts and blocks notified by the State Government. Waiver of interest @ 10% p.a. on the each borrowing till 31/03/2003 was allowed under the said scheme notified by Reserve Bank of India.
(2) Case of the complainant is that the Opponent Bank sanctioned the borrowing facility of `235 lacs and this entire amount was eligible/qualified to be charged at the concessional rate of interest as per the guidelines under scheme. However, the Opponent Bank refunded differential interest amounting to `7,37,991.87 on the adhoc limit of cash credit of the complainant, since differential interest on entire cash credit of `235 lacs was not considered for refund. Repeated requests of the complainant proved futile for refund of the differential interest on entire cash credit. Aggrieved thereby, this consumer complaint has been filed claiming an amount of `37.14 lacs on account of business loss together with `1 lac as cost of litigation.
(3) The Opponent Bank appeared and vehemently opposed the claim of the complainant by filing written version. The first ground in the written version is that the complaint is time-barred as the cause of action arose in the month of December 2005, whereas the complaint has been filed in the month of June 2009 that too without the application for condonation of delay. The second ground is that adhoc limit of cash credit of `140 lacs [Under caption Cash Credit (hypothecation) adhoc `80 lacs & SOD (Book Debt) `60 lacs = `140 lacs] was sanctioned to the complainant for executing the work within a period of 15 months in Sikka, Jamnagar, Gujarat i.e. in the earthquake affected area and not `235 lacs as presumed by the complainant. The cash credit of `205 lacs was sanctioned for carrying on unit at Mumbai. The complainant failed to utilize adhoc limit of `140 lacs for executing UDHE India Ltd. orders for GSFC Ltd., Sikka, Jamnagar, Gujrat within a period of 15 months and not submitted the required certificates from the competent State Government authorities to demonstrate that the work executed was in earthquake affected zone. The complainant with malafides intention tried to club regular cash credit with adhoc cash credit sanction for execution of project at Sikka, Jamnagar, Gujrat. Number of works executed by the complainant pertained to their unit located in Maharashtra. As per the policy notified by the Reserve Bank of India for the earthquake affected persons, Opponent Bank has already refunded differential rate of interest on the adhoc limit of cash credit though the complainant failed to produce required certificates from State Government authorities of Gujrat and such amount of differential interest was `7,37,991.87.
(4) Further it is averred by the Opponent Bank that on the point of limitation and since eligible rate of interest on the adhoc credit facility as permissible under the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India, no deficiency whatsoever incurred by the Opponent Bank, therefore, the complaint is not maintainable at all and dismissible.
(5) Heard Mr.Ashutosh Marathe-Advocate for the complainant and Mrs. Suchitra Patra-Advocate for the Opponent Bank. We perused the record.
(6) Transaction pertains to the period prior to amendment in Sec.2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 that took place on 15/03/2003 thereby excluding the commercial transaction from the perview of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. As rightly pleaded by the learned advocate of the complainant, the complainant was at the relevant date of transaction was consumer as defined u/s. 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (prior to amendment). Apparently, Opponent Bank sanctioned adhoc cash credit under the caption of adhoc (cash credit hypothecation) `80 lacs and again adhoc SOD (Book debt) `60 lacs. Thus, making total adhoc credit of 140 lacs. The letter as argued by the learned advocate of the Opponent Bank clearly spelt out the intention of the banker in no uncertain words thereby granting adhoc limit because the wording of the sanction letter which reads as :
“We are pleased to inform you that the following Adhoc limit has been sanctioned by the Bank in your favour for a period of 15 months to execute UDHE India Ltd. Order for GSFC Ltd. Sikka Jamnagar.”
Therefore, the presumption and notion of the complainant that adhoc limit includes regular limit of `65 + `35 = `95 lacs in unfounded. There is no dispute about interpretation of guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India thereby granting refund of 10% simple interest on the borrowings for the works executed in the earthquake affected area in Gujrat, cut-off date for utilization and sanction of this facility is not also in dispute. The works executed within adhoc sanction limit were assessed and the Opponent Bank refunded differential rate of interest @10% p.a. to the complainant. Not satisfied with the action of the Opponent Bank, the complainant incessantly took up the matter for extending the differential interest facility for the entire amount of credit of `235 lacs i.e. (`145 + `90) under caption Cash Credit + hypothecated + SOD sanctioned by the Opponent Bank. The complainant relied on the office note and other correspondence obtained under the provisions of RTI which according to the complainant qualifies for refund of interest of `37,14,705.75. Such a note is prepared by the Manager, signed by Sr.Manager, but there is no sanction of the Chief Manager. Reliance on internal communication whatsoever will be of no benefit to the complainant as these are the process notes and unless and until achieved finality and decision conveyed to concerned, will be of no avail.
(7) It is observed that the point of delay in filing the consumer complaint raised by the Opponent Bank is not tenable since the delay was condoned in Misc.Application No.MA/10/90 by an order dated 31/03/2010 by this Commission.
(8) Concession of rate of interest was already released on the adhoc limit of 140 lacs and the amount of `7,37,991.07 was refunded as per the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India notification to the complainant and confirmation letter dated 22/01/2004 was issued by the Opponent Bank accordingly. The claim of the complainant is unfounded for seeking differential interest of `37,14,705.75 as obviously the concessional rate for borrowing was sanctioned only for the adhoc limit and that too for the implementation of the work from the date of sanction at Sikka Jamnagar i.e. affected by earthquake. Such a adhoc limit put together under two heads - Cash Credit (hypothecation) and SOD (book debt) is `80 + 6`0 = `140 lacs. After assessing the record of the complainant for actual execution of works, the Opponent Bank has refunded the differential interest on the credit limit that was actually spent for the execution of the work in earthquake affected area in Gujrat. Opponent Bank also simultaneously issued NOC for release of title deeds and released title deeds of office premises of the complainant.
(9) After careful considering the claim of the complainant, we find that timely action taken by the Opponent Bank to refund differential amount of interest on the adhoc credit limit for actual executed work cannot be faulted with and no deficiency in service can be attributed against the Opponent Bank. We hold accordingly and pass the following order.
ORDER
Consumer Complaint stands dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost.
Pronounced on 11th December, 2013
