KUNDAN KUMAR KUMAI       

This is an appeal u/s15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, preferred against the judgement and order dated 30/12/2022, passed by the Ld. DCDRF, Raiganj, Uttar Dinajpur in Consumer Complaint No. 09/2020.

Brief fact of the appellant’s case is that, the appellant had a food processing unit viz. Shree Shyam Mini Rice Mill, under MSME category, registered with the District Industries Center, Uttar Dinajpur at Raiganj. Previously, the appellant had taken Term Loan and CC Loan from the Respondent no.1, for the purpose of running his unit and transaction of his accounts was quite satisfactory. Being MSME Scheme the appellant had to pay rate of interest in his account @ base rate plus 0.50 %. On 12/03/2015, the appellant renewed his account and the Respondent sanctioned rate of interest of his loan account was @ base rate plus 2.00 % and charged renewal fees of Rs.62,752/- (Rupees sixty-two thousand seven hundred fifty-two) only, on 12/03/2015, as because the MSME Scheme had expired on 14/02/2014. At that time, the Bank Authority assured the Complainant, as and when the Scheme for financing the Food & Agro-Processing Units would be renewed, the appellant would be able to return the excess renewal fees charged by the Banking Authority.

Subsequently, the Scheme was renewed on and from 05/12/2015 by the Rural & Agri-Business Deparment for “existing and proposed Food & Agro-Based Industrial Units fulfilling criterion of the Scheme.” The appellant thereafter, vide letter no. SSMRM/UBI/2015 dated 13/12/2015, requested the Respondent no.1 to revise the rate of interest of his accounts as base rate plus 0.50%, as they had charged interest of CC Account and Term Loan Account of the appellant amounting to Rs.54,815/- (Rupees fifty four thousand eight hundred fifteen) only, as interest on CC Account No.549505040000109 and an amount of Rs. 91,516/- (Rupees ninety-one thousand five hundred sixteen) only, as interest on Term Loan Account no. 549506110000012 on 19/06/2017, wrongly from the accounts of the appellant for the previous period without any correspondence.

The appellant made written correspondence to the Respondents, time and again and thereafter AGM of the Siliguri Regional Office of the Respondent/Bank viz. Smt. Jayshree Buglery, visited the office of the appellant with the Respondent no.1 and after verifying all the documents in presence of the Respondent no.1, assured the appellant that the amount charged wrongly in those accounts would be refunded within a short period. But the Respondents failed to take any initiative to refund the above-mentioned excess charged amount to the appellant. Subsequently, on 02/11/2018 the appellant gave a reminder to the Respondent no.1, but no positive reply came from his end and finally the appellant by his letter dated 21/06/2019 informed the Respondents to refund the amount within 30 (thirty) days, in default he would proceed legally. On 21/08/2019 the Respondent no.1 intimated by a letter that “……interest rate to be charged at that time @ base rate plus 2.00 per cent and in cash-credit account at that time base rate was 10.00 per cent. During audit dated 03/06/2017 in Term Loan @ L Base + 0.50 per cent in cash-credit account which was lower than the sanction advice rate. Due to this, auditor had pointed out leakage of income in the account during audit at Regional Office, Siliguri”. Thus, the letter dated 21/08/2019, sent by the Respondent no.1, clearly revealed that the act which was done by the Respondents, came within the purview of deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice, because the appellant was entitled to the interest rate of base rate plus 0.50 per cent from 05/12/2015 till 19/06/2017. Hence the appellant issued a Legal Notice dated 19/12/2019, requesting the Respondent to take necessary action so that the appellant would be able to get refund of the extra amount of renewal fees charged by the Respondent as well as excess amount of Rs.54,815/- (Rupees fifty- four thousand eight hundred fifteen) only, as interest charged by the Respondents on CC Account No. 549505040000109 and an amount of Rs. 91,516/- (Rupees ninety-one thousand five hundred sixteen) only, as excess interest charged by the Respondents on Term Loan Account No. 549506110000012 on 19/06/2017, together with interest for the period of wrongly debited amount within 15 days after receiving the Advocate’s letter, which the Respondent no.1, received on 23/12/2019, but there was no response.

Respondent no.2’s advocate, sent a reply, by letter dated 03/01/2020. Finding no alternative, the appellant filed this case before the Ld. DCDRF, Raiganj, Uttar Dinajpur with necessary prayers.

The Respondent no. 1 entered appearance by filing written version, wherein the case of the appellant was denied on the ground that the Respondent no.2, intimated about his inability to refund the amount to the appellant stating that the audit was initiated as per instance of the Audit Dept. of Zonal Office, Kolkata and the leakage pertaining to the period from 12/03/2015 to 03/06/2017, was detected by the Internal Auditor of the Respondent/Bank after thorough scrutiny at Regional Office Siliguri. It was found that the interest charged in the account was correct and genuinely recovered and the same was intimated to the Respondent no.1, vide letter dated 21/08/2019 and the Respondent no.1 had accordingly intimated the appellant. As per sanction advice by the Regional Office Siliguri on 12/03/2015, that the interest rate to be charged at the time was @ base rate plus 2.00 per cent totaling to 10 per cent during audit on 03/06/2017, it was found that the interest rate charged in the system was @ MCL1Y plus 3.65 per cent i.e., 12.15 per cent. But as the rate of interest charged from the appellant’s account was 9.80 per cent, the auditor pointed out leakage of income in the account and therefore the question of refunding the charged amount did not occur and the appellant was apprised thereof. The Respondent no.2 intimated about his inability to return, through his advocate, as the amount was correctly deducted. Hence there being no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice, prayed for dismissal of the case.

Respondent no.2 did not appear and therefore the case was heard ex-parte against the Respondent no.2.

After going through the evidence on record and hearing the parties, the Ld. DCDRF, Raiganj, Uttar Dinajpur in Consumer Complaint No. 09/2020 passed the impugned order dismissing the case on contest but without cost.

Being aggrieved by the above order the Appellant preferred this instant appeal on the ground, that the Ld. DCDRF, Raiganj, erred in law and facts while passing the impugned order.

                                                      Decisions with Reasons

Ld. Advocate for the Appellant at the time of final hearing submitted that the Appellant’s Rice Mill had been registered under the MSME Scheme and after the expiry on 14/02/2014 had renewed his loan on 31/12/2014, but he did not get the facility of the MSME Scheme. On 05/12/2015, when the Scheme had been started, the Appellant had requested the Respondent Bank/OP no.1 to provide facility according to that Scheme, but the Respondent/Bank, whimsically deducted Rs.54,815/- (Rupees fifty-four thousand eight hundred fifteen) only and Rs.91,516/- (Rupees ninety-one thousand five hundred sixteen) only from his CC Account and Terma Loan A/c. totaling to Rs.1,46,331/- (Rupees one lakh forty-six thousand three hundred thirty-one) only. As explanation the Respondent/Bank had stated that the Internal Auditor had pointed out the anomaly and the same had been deducted as per prevailing guidelines. The Ld. DCDRF, Raiganj, Uttar Dinajpur had wrongly held that the interest had been charged correctly and directed the Appellant to move before the Appellate Authority or Banking Ombudsman. Thus, the Ld. Forum failed to adjudicate properly.

The Respondents did not appear to contest the appeal and therefore the appeal was heard ex-parte.

The fact on record is more or less admitted and only point of contention is whether the interest should be levied as per the Regional Office Ref. no. RO: SIL: ADV:S.888 dated 12/03/2015 or Information Circular No.495-2015 dated 05/12/2015. Since, the latter circular is of the later date, interest should have been levied as claimed by the Appellant, on the basis of the latter circular, but the Respondent/Bank failed to do so and did not provide any reason for not doing so. Under the circumstance, the deductions of Rs.54,815/- (Rupees fifty-four thousand eight hundred fifteen) only and Rs.91,516/- (Rupees ninety-one thousand five hundred sixteen) only, on 19/06/2017, appears to have been done arbitrarily making it an unfair trade practice.

Moreover, the Ld. DCDRF’s observation, that the Appellant ought to have preferred to the Appellant Authority and if necessary, the banking ombudsman is also not supported by any law. On the other hand, section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 clearly emphasizes the error in the above observation. Under the circumstance, the instant appeal succeeds.

Hence when the factual aspect is admitted the Respondent nos.1 & 2/Bank/OP nos.1 & 2 are directed to refund the amount of Rs.54,815/- (Rupees fifty-four thousand eight hundred fifteen) only and Rs.91,516/- (Rupees ninety one thousand five hundred sixteen) only totaling to Rs.1,46,331/- (Rupees one lakh forty-six thousand three hundred thirty-one) only as excess interest charged on CC A/c.  No. 549505040000109 and on Term Loan A/c No 549506110000012, respectively with interest from 19/6/2017 @ 9% till the payment. The Respondent nos. 1 & 2 are further directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) only as mental pain and agony and Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only as litigation cost within 45 (forty-five) days from the date of this order.

                                                       It is therefore,

                                                        ORDERED

That the instant appeal be and the same is allowed ex-parte but without cost.

The impugned order is hereby set aside and the Respondent nos. 1 & 2 are directed to comply with the directions, mentioned in the body of the judgement.

Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost.

Copy of the order be sent to the Ld. DCDRF, Raiganj, Uttar Dinajpur for necessary information.