DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 104 of 27.3.2017

                                      Decided on: 13.9.2021

Hari Ram Varinder Kumar, Grain Merchants & Commission Agents, SCF 27, Phase-II, New Grain Market, Sirhind Road, through its Proprietor/Partner Sh.Varinder Kumar S/o Sh.Bhim Sen, resident of H.No.17-A,Kishore Colony, Patiala.                                                              …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1. The Chief Manager, State Bank of Patiala (SBOP),Bhupindra Nagar Branch, Bhupindra Road, Patiala (Now S.B.I.)
2. The Chief Manager, R.S.E.M.E.C.,(State Bank of Patiala SBOP) Pragati Bhawan, Urban Estate, Phase-III, Patiala now S.B.I.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act

QUORUM

                                      Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President

                                      Dr.Harman Shergill Sullar,Member 

ARGUED BY              

                                      Sh.Parvinder Singla, counsel for complainant.

                                      Sh.Anand Puri, counsel for OPs.                                  

 ORDER

                                      JASJIT SINGH BHINDER,PRESIDENT

1. This complaint has been filed through the proprietor Sh.Narinder Kumar of Garg Trading Company against the OPs.
2.        Briefly, the case of the complainant is that the complainant firm has CC Limit account  No.65004836492 with the OPs for the last more than twenty years and he used to deposit the amount and has been paying the interest on the amount withdrawn from this CC Limit regularly.
3.  It is averred that from the perusal of statements of account for the period from 1.6.2016 to 31.12.2016, it transpires that the penalty on interest amount has been imposed on 31.7.2016 to the tune of Rs.4081/-, on 31.8.2016 to the tune of Rs.18054/- and on 31.11.2016 to the tune of Rs.9518/- totaling to Rs.65,543/-. It is further averred that an amount of Rs.one lac on 29.8.2016, Rs.5 lac on 21.10.2016 , Rs.8 lac on 27.10.2016, Rs.40,000/- on 22.11.2016, Rs.4000/- on 22.11.2016, Rs.28,838/- on 22.11.2016 and Rs.37lac on 15.12.2016 were deposited by the complainant. It is further averred that no penalty amount is liable to be deducted/imposed on the interest amount of complainant.
4. It is further averred that the complainant visited many a times to the office of OP No.1 to get rectify the mistake but to no effect. There is thus deficiency of service on the part of the OPs, which caused mental agony, torture and inconvenience to the complainant.
5. Hence this complaint with the prayer to accept the same by giving direction to the OPs to reverse the entries amounting to Rs.63543/- imposed by way of penalties on interest; to Rs.50,000/-as compensation and Rs.15000/-as litigation expenses.
6. Upon notice OPs appeared and filed the written reply having raised preliminary objections with regard to the maintainability of the complaint. On merits, it is submitted that the complainant firm through its proprietor Sh.Varinder Kumar Garg s/o Bhim Sain is customer of the OPs and is having CC Limit with OP No.1.It is further averred that lastly, on 4.9.2013 the complainant availed the CC Limit of Rs.45 Lakh.Raj Kumari and Kusum Lata stood as guarantor for the repayment of the CC Limit .They also executed loan documents in favour of the OPs. Raj Dulari and Kusum Lata also mortgaged their property being guarantors. It is further  pleaded that the complainant did not submit the  complete financial data required for review/renewal of the CC Limit and also did not submit the  stock statement as per the arrangement letter dated 4.9.2013 executed  by the complainant and the guarantors, in which it has been clearly mentioned that enhanced rate will be charged on the excess drawing in case of any irregularity/breach is continuously less than 60 days and if it exceeds beyond 60 days on the entire outstanding amount from the date of  irregularity/breach enhanced interest will be compounded monthly. It is further averred that the amount of penalty on interest amount has been rightly imposed/charged. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. After denying all other averments, the OPs have prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
7. In support of the complaint, Sh.Varinder Kumar has tendered his affidavit,Ex.CA alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C5 and closed the evidence.
8. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OPs has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Ms.Vanita Sood, Chief Manager alongwith the documents Exs. OP1 to OP3 and closed the evidence.
9. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
10. The ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the OPs have illegally deducted penalty on the interest amount and they have indulged into unfair trade practice. The ld. counsel has further argued that the dispute is regarding leveling  and deduction of penal interest amount from the account of the complainant to the tune of Rs.63543/- wrongly and illegally without any notice. The ld. counsel further argued that the complainant has been regularly depositing the amount to the bank but the amount has been wrongly deducted. So the complaint be allowed.
11. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OPs has argued that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and the complainant himself is at fault as he failed to regularize the CC Limit after availing the loan. The ld. counsel further argued that the complainant failed to deposit the interest on the CC Limit amount withdrawn by him. As such the penalty was rightly imposed. So the complaint be dismissed.
12. To prove this case, complainant Varinder Kumar has tendered his affidavit, Ex.CA and he has deposed as per the complaint. He has deposed that Rs.63543/- has wrongly been deducted.Ex.C1 is legal notice,Exs.C2 and C3 are postal receipts.
13. Ex.C4 is letter. This is important document written by the complainant to the Chief Manager, SBP, Urban Estate, Phase III, Patiala. In this letter, it is mentioned that he has CC Limit with the bank made on the basis of commission agents and they have  received the credited amount twice a year in April and October and deposit the entire amount with the bank. They were not in the knowledge that they were suppose to deposit the interest in each month and due to non deposit of the interest monthly, the bank has levied penalty.
14. So this is admission of the complainant firm that they have not deposited the interest monthly which they were bound to deposit with the bank.Ex.C5 is statement of account
15. On the other hand on behalf of the OPs Ms.Vanita Sood, Chief Manager has tendered her affidavit, Ex.OPA and she has deposed as per the written statement.Ex.OP1 is letter of arrangement.Ex.OP2 is guarantee agreement.Ex.OP3 is renewal of cash credit limit of Rs.45 lac.
16. As per the pleadings of both the parties the main dispute is that the bank has levied penalty to tune of Rs. 63543/- on the complainant illegally. As already stated above. There is letter,Ex.C4,  written by the complainant that  he was not in the knowledge that the form was to deposit the interest with the bank on each and every month. So the fault is on the complainant to not to deposit the interest in time as is admitted by him vide Ex.C4.
17. In the written statement filed by the bank, they have stated that the complainant has not deposited the interest with the bank on time and that is why the penalty was imposed upon them. In the letter of arrangement, Ex.OP1, everything is clearly mentioned that, enhanced rate will be charged on the excess drawings in case of any irregularity/breach is continuously less than 60 days, and if it exceeds beyond 60 days on entire outstanding from the date of irregularity/breach. It is further stated that enhanced rate of interest at 1% cumulatively subject to a maximum of 2% will be charged for the period of delay in respect of (i) non submission of financial data required for review (ii) non submission of annual financial statements and (iii) non submission of stock statements.
18. So it is clear that the bank has deducted the penalty as the complainant has failed to deposit the interest with the bank on time. So there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OPs and the complaint is dismissed accordingly with no order as to costs.  

ANNOUNCED

DATED:13.9.2021  

                                       Dr.Harman Shergill Sullar    Jasjit Singh Bhinder

                                                    Member                                President