Order No. 38 dt. 15/11/2016
The case of the complainants in brief is that the complainants opened a bank account since the year 2002 at the branch office of Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd., Kolkata took a loan @ 14.5%. The complainant subsequently opened the account in bank of o.p. with assurance that interest will be charged @ 14.5% p.a. in respect of cash credit facility and the sanction limit was provided in favour of the complainant to the tune of Rs.1,25,00,000/-. The complainant on repayment of the loan in time the sanction limit was extended from to Rs.1,50,00,000/- and the rate of interest was fixed @ 14% in respect of cash credit facility. The o.p. bank further extended the cash credit limit from Rs.1,50,00,000/- to Rs.1,80,00,000/- at the same rate of interest of 14% p.a. and the complainant was assured that interest would be charged @ 13% p.a. but after enjoyment of cash credit facility of Rs.1,80,00,000/- the rate of interest was on the cash credit facility amount @ 14% p.a. After extension of the cash credit facility the complainant received a statement of account from the branch office of o.p. calculated the rate of interest @ 16% p.a. After receiving the account the complainant requested the o.p. for consideration of over charged interest but no action was taken.
Subsequently the complainant received a statement of ledger for interest and the statement of account wherefrom it came to knowledge of the complainant that interest @16% p.a. was charged instead of 14% p.a. The complainant requested the o.ps. for rectification of the rate of interest but no action was taken on behalf of the o.ps. Subsequently the complainant filed this case praying for necessary direction be given to o.ps. to credit the over charged interest of Rs.2,02,884/- which was deducted from the complainants’ account together with interest at the prevailing rate i.e. 13% p.a. from 13.10.03 till the realization of the same and also prayed for compensation of Rs.1 lakh and litigation of rs.10,000/-.
The o.ps. contested this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations of the complaint. It was stated that the complainant filed this case with malafide intention and the complainant is not a consumer as per provision laid down of Sec 2(d) of the C.P. Act. The complainant admitted that the transaction had taken place on 13.10.03 but this case was filed in the year 2011 i.e. after the lapse of 8 years and on that score alone the case is to dismissed in limini. The complainant obtained the cash credit facility from o.p. no.2 for commercial purpose as the said credit facility was sanctioned for running the business of the complainant. In view of the facts and circumstances as stated above o.ps. prayed for dismissal of the case by awarding cost to the o.p. nos.1 to 3.
On the basis of the pleadings of parties the following points are to be decided:
- Whether the case is maintainable.
- Whether the complainant got the assurance from the o.ps. for imposing interest upon the complainant @ 13% or 16%.
- Whether the complainant will be entitled to get relief as prayed for.
Decision with reasons:
All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.
Ld. lawyer for the complainant argued that the complainant opened an account with the cash credit facility from the o.p. bank with the assurance that 13% interest would be charged. Subsequently the complainant received the demand from o.ps. for enjoyment of the cash credit facility of Rs.1,80,00,000/- and the interest was charged @ 16% for which the complainant had to file this case. So far as the maintainability of the case is concerned ld. lawyer for the complainant cited several ruling as reported in 1(2005) CPJ 24 (NC) Harsolia Motors vs. National Insurance Co. and also Civil Appeal No.1879 of 2003 (SC) Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation vs. Ashok Iron Works Pvt. Ltd. Relying on those decisions ld. lawyer emphasized that the case is maintainable and the company is a person within the meaning of Sec 2(1)(d) read with Sec 2(1)(m) of the C.P. Act.
Ld. lawyer for the complainant also relied on decision of Hon’ble State Commission being FA No.260 of 2010. Considering those rulings ld. lawyer emphasized that the case is maintainable and the complainant will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for.
Ld. lawyer for the o.ps. argued that the complainant is a business organization and availed the cash credit facility from the o.p. bank for running the business, so the complainants are not at all consumer according to the definition as mentioned in Sec 2(d) of the C.P. Act. The complainant stated that the cause of action for this case arose on 13.10.03, 22.11.04, 15.5.04 wherefrom it would be evident that the instant complaint case was filed in the year 2011 after lapse of 7-8 years from the date of cause of action. Hence it can be said that the instant complaint is hopelessly barred by law of limitation. Since the C.P. Act can be availed of a person aggrieved must come before the Forum within a period of 2 years from the date of arising of cause of action. In view of the facts and circumstances as stated above ld. lawyer emphasized that the case is to be dismissed.
Considering the submissions of the respective parties it is an admitted fact that the complainant is a company in order to run the business the company / complainant availed of cash credit facility from o.p. bank and the complainant claimed that the interest charged by the bank in respect of the cash credit facility upon the total quantum of amount of Rs.1,25,00,000/-, Rs.1,50,00,000/-, Rs.1,80,00,000/- and the interest charged @ 14.5%, 16% etc. but actually ought to have been 13% and 14% respectively. On the basis of the said calculation the complainant sought for the relief and prayed for retuning of the over charged interest so that the said amount may be adjusted with the current account maintained in the said bank. From the said materials on record it is admitted fact that the complainant is a company and relying on the decision as cited by ld. lawyer for the complainant we hold that the case is not barred u/s 2(1)(d) of the C.P. Act, but from the admitted position which is revealed from the complaint that the complainant sought for the relief in respect of the transactions that took place in the year 2003, 2004, 2005 i.e. 7-8 years after the lapse of those years the case was filed instead of availing of the remedy within 2 years from the date of cause of action and the complainant did not file any petition praying for condonation of delay as per Sec 22A of the C.P. Act. Simply because an advocate’s letter was sent in the year 2011 cannot give rise to the right of the complainant to file this case. In view of the facts and circumstances as stated above we hold that the case is hopelessly barred by limitation and the complainant will not be entitled to get relief as prayed for. Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.
Hence, ordered,
That the CC No.168/2011 is dismissed on contest without cost against the o.ps.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
