West Bengal

Bankura

CC/9/2024

Sri Mrityunjoy Pande - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager,State Bank of India,Beliatore Branch - Opp.Party(s)

Anjan Sarkar

25 Sep 2024

ORDER

IN    THE   DISTRICT   CONSUMER   DISPUTES   REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANKURA

  Consumer Complaint No.09/2024

       Date of Filing:  19/01/2024

Before:                                        

1. Samiran Dutta                                     Ld. President      

2. Siddhartha Sankar Bhui                    Ld. Member

 

For the Complainant:Ld. Advocates:  Anjan Sarkar / Subrata Chakraborty

For the O.P.: Ld. Advocate Prasun Kumar Bandyopadhyay

 

Complainant:

Sri Mrityunjoy Pande, S/O-Sri Sasthipada Pande, R/O-Vill & P.O & P.S-Beliatore, Dist-Bankura, W.B (Proprietor of M/S Pande Tele Link), Mob-9434108457

 

Opposite Party:

The Branch Manager,State  Bank of India,Beliatore Branch,Vill&P.O-Beliatore,Dist-Bankura

 

FINAL ORDER / JUDGEMENT         

 

Order No.12

Dated:25-09-2024

Both parties file hazira through Advocate.

The case is fixed for argument.

After hearing argument from both sides the Commission proceeds to dispose of the case as hereunder: -

The Complainant’s case is that he being a young Entrepreneur running a business under the name and style M/s Pande Tele Link having C.C. Account No. being 34488942841 with O.P./Bank took cash credit facility of Rs.10 Lakh in the Year 2014 by Equitable mortgage of a landed property with structure thereon which was subsequently enhanced from time to time to Rs.15 Lakh and thereafter to Rs.22.5 Lakh and lastly to 30 Lakh in the Year-2020. At the time of last enhancement of cash credit limit to Rs.30 Lakh O.P./Bank deducted Rs.40,710/- for the Year-2020-21 and the same amount for the Year-2021-22 under CGTMSE Scheme along with Rs.20,000/- as Charges for extension of eqitable mortgage and Rs.6,300/- as Insurance Charges totalling Rs.1,07,720/- to which the Complainant has objection. The Complainant has therefore approached this Commission for refund of the deducted amount with compensation and for other relief he is entitled to.

                                                                                                                                                                                      Contd…..p/2                                                                     

                                                                                                            Page: 2

O.P./Bank  contested the case by filing a written version contending inter alia that the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief in this case as all the deductions are admissible under CGTMSE Scheme.

-: Decision with reasons:-

Having regard to the facts of the case, contention, submission, and documents on both sides the Commission finds that  so long the cash credit limit was up to Rs.22.5 Lakh it did not come within the purview of CGTMSE but after its enhancement to Rs.30 Lakh O.P./Bank introduced CGTMSE Scheme and made the aforesaid deductions. Admittedly, at the time of availing cash credit facility the Complainant mortgaged his landed property with structure valued at Rs.21,53,000/- as per Valuation Report submitted by O.P./Bank Authority. So the cash credit facility availed of by the Complainant is a secured loan covered by the mortgaged property but it is admitted by the O.P./Bank in Para-5 of the written version that CGTMSE is a Central Govt. Scheme to provide fund in respect of unsecured loans.

The Complainant availed of secured loan facility up to the limit of Rs.22.5 Lakh but thereafter the O.P./Bank Authority suo motu enhanced the credit limit to Rs.30 Lakh by introducing CGTMSE Scheme without taking the Complainant into confidence and e-mail correspondence dated: 20/04/2022 long after the enhancement of the cash credit facility to Rs.30 Lakh is of no help to the O.P./Bank to treat it as the post facto consent of the Complainant to adopt CGTMSE Scheme and as such the deductions made under CGTMSE Scheme amounting to Rs.1,07,720/- is not permissible under the Banking Rules. The Complainant is therefore entitled to get refund of the same by limiting his cash credit facility up to Rs.22.5 Lakh.

                                                                                                                                                                                       Contd…..p/3

Page: 3

At the time of hearing Ld. Advocate on both sides have presented their respective case under the impression that the CGTMSE Scheme is applicable to the present case which allows deduction of Rs.1,07,720/- but the documents available on record do not justify the deduction of such amount. On perusal of the documents on record the Commission is of the view that the CGTMSE Scheme under which the disputed deductions were made was introduced suo motu by the O.P./Bank Authority without letting the Complainant know the real facts thereof and such act and conduct of the O.P./Bank amounts to unfair trade practice within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act and as such the O.P./Bank is liable to refund the deducted amount of Rs.1,07,720/- to the Complainant limiting cash credit facility up to Rs.22.5  Lakh and the O.P./Bank is at liberty to restore the original status of the cash credit facility of the Complainant without the provision of CGTMSE Scheme.

Hence it is ordered…….

That the case be and the same is allowed on contest but without cost.

O.P./Bank is directed to make refund of Rs.1,07,720/- to the Complainant by adjustment with his cash credit account with further direction to restore the original cash credit status of the Complainant up to the limit of Rs.22.5 Lakh bereft of CGTMSE Scheme with immediate effect.

Both parties be supplied copy of this Order free of cost.

 

     __________________                                   ________________         

 HON’BLE   PRESIDENT                           HON’BLE    MEMBER