Karnataka

Belgaum

CC/808/2014

M/s. Anil Annasaheb Patil, - Complainant(s)

Versus

The ICICIBank - Opp.Party(s)

S.G.Ganchari

22 May 2017

ORDER

IN THE DIST.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM BELAGAVI.

 

Dated this 22 May 2017

 

Complaint No. 808/2014

 

Present:              1)      Shri.B.V.Gudli,                       President  

2)      Smt. Sunita,                           Member

-***-

 

Complainant/s:          M/s.Anil Annasaheb Patil,

A registered Partnership Firm

Having its place business at:

Shop No.46, Corporation Complex,

Goaves, Hindwadi, Belagavi,

R/by its Managing Partner,

Anil Annasaheb Patil

 

(By Sri.S.G.Ganachari, Advocate)

 

V/s.

                                                                     

Opponent/s:      1)      The ICICI Bank,

Khanapur Road,

Tilakwadi, Belagavi 590006.

R/by its Authorized Signatory/

Branch Manager.

 

                          2)      The ICICI Bank Ltd,

Registered Office:

“Landmark”, Race Course Circle,

Vadodara 390 007

R/by its Authorized Signatory.

 

(By Sri.S.B.Muttalli, Adv.)

 

 

 (Order dictated by Sri.B.V.Gudli, President)

 

 

 

 

ORDER

          U/s. 12 of the C.P. Act, the complainant has filed the complaint against the O.Ps. alleging deficiency in service in banking service in recovering excess interest amount and late fee amount from complainant.

          2) Upon issuance of notice from the forum the O.P.1 & 2 appeared through his advocate and filed objections, affidavit and  produced some documents and also produced written arguments.

           3) In support of the claim of the complaint, the complainant has filed his affidavit and produced some documents.  

4) We have also heard on both side and perused the records.

          5) Now the point for our consideration is that whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps & entitled to the reliefs sought?

          6) Our finding on the point is in Negative for the following reasons.

:: R E A S O N S ::

            7)       On perusal of allegations of the complainant and affidavit of complainant, the complainant is a class 1 contractor engaged in the business of undertaking large scale government contracts for construction bridges, roads etc., of PWD. The complainant firm had applied for financial assistance for the purpose of its business and accordingly the OPs  have sanctioned Rs.2,05,00,000/-, the term of facility was 10 years @ floating rate of interest with base rate of 8.75% and amount was payable in 120 EMIS of Rs.3,00,072/-. Further it was also agreed that in the event of foreclosure of the said loan, the OPs would charge 2% on the amount pre paid. However the complainant firm was not satisfied with the services rendered by OPs and hence the complainant firm decided to foreclose the LAP loan account by clearing off the loan dues. The Managing Partner of the complainant firm therefore approached the OP.1 on 24.07.2014  and informed the OP.1 about his decision of foreclosure of the said loan. Accordingly the OP.1 by the letter dt.31.07.2014 demanded Rs.1,80,43,907/- with foreclosure charges @4.955% interest. But, on the basis of letter dt.02.08.2014 the OP.1 on 08.08.2014 given overall approval for payment of 2% prepayment charges + service tax and demanded total amount Rs.1,77,04,674/- (i.e. total principal amount Rs.1,71,34,216/-, penalty Rs.2,180/-, interest upto 08.08.2014 Rs.1,83,238/- & prepayment charges 2% + service tax amounting to   Rs.3,85,040/-). However the complainant firm paid the said revised demand raised by OP.1 on 08.08.2014 and paid Rs.1,77,04,674/- (i.e. through DD No.59900 of Rs.1,77,04,674/- dt.31.07.2014, through cheque no.104523 Rs.4,30,850/- and balance Rs.45,824/- cash) towards full and final pre payment of the facility and requested the OPs to release the property documents viz., Title Deeds deposited by the complainant with OP.1 and to issue NOC. But the OP.1 declined to comply the request of the complainant for return of title deeds on the pretext that the complainant was still liable to pay additional amount towards the above said  charges. The complainant was at utter surprise on receipt of letter dt.14.08.2014 of OPs that as per the sanction letter available with them the foreclosure charges applicable are @4% + service tax and further called upon complainant to pay the difference of 2% + service tax and further denied release of property documents of the complainant firm. The OPs along with the said communication attached a photocopy said to be the copy of the sanction letter for the perusal of complainant firm. The complainant firm noticed that there are variation in the said copy of the sanction letter accompanying the communication. The rate of interest shown “@2%”was corrected as “@4%” and the corrections were only signed by the OPs officials and there were no signatures of the partners of the complainant firm on the said corrections. The date mentioned therein was 31.03.2011 and was bearing No.5800974 whereas the sanction letter handed over by the OPs to the complainant was dt.30.03.2011 and was bearing No.5800976. Inspite of requests made by the complainant the OPs have not heed the requests of the complainant and hence the complainant having left with no option paid the difference amount Rs.3,85,040/- under protest by way of DD bearing No.060024 dt.18.08.2014. The OPs after receipt of the said amount, released the property Title Deeds to the complainant. The complainant firm suffered monetary loss of additional interest charged by OPs for no fault of the complainant firm to the tune of Rs.45,808/- till 08.08.2013. If the OP.1 had received the DD and Cheque amount, the question of payment of additional interest would not arisen at all. Hence there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice by the OPs. Therefore the complainant constrained to file this complaint against OPs.

          8)      The OP.1 and 2 filed their objections & affidavit contending that the complainant does not come within the definition of Sec.2(d) of CP Act. Although the pre payment charges were paid @4% + service tax for a sum of Rs.3,85,040/- by the complainant, the same was refunded to the complainant by crediting an amount of Rs.3,82,708-81 to his SB a/c No.017601512663 on 19.05.2015 based on the part of dispute of the complainant. After such credit even the complainant had withdrawn an amount of Rs.3,80,000/- on 29.05.2015. In so far as late payment charges of Rs.45,808/- is concerned, it is the interest charges which has been levied upon the complainant for the period from 31.07.2014 to 07.08.2014. The foreclosure amount was calculated on 31.07.2014 considering the fact that the complainant will be making the payment on 31.07.2014. However the complainant instead of paying the same on 31.07.2014 had paid on 07.08.2014. Therefore the said amount was charged and collected by OPs as the same is permitted under the terms and conditions of the loan agreement.

          9)      Since the facts of the case have been discussed in the preceding paras there is no necessity to repeat the same.

          10)    On perusal of written version of OP, the OP has taken contention that, the complainant is not a consumer as per the provisions of CP Act, as no facts & circumstances of the complaint are covered under the provisions of the CP Act. Therefore, the complaint has to be dismissed on this count itself. Therefore the complainant does not come within the definition of consumer, as per Sec.2(d) of CP Act, 1986. In the light of the said provision of law, the present complaint has to be dismissed in limine on the said count itself. The complaint has alleged that, the complainant firm is a Class-I Government Contractor at Belgaum engaged in the  business of undertaking large scale Government contracts for the construction of bridges, roads & buildings of the Public Works Department & Military Engineering Services. The OPs are financial  institution having their registered office at Vadodara and Branch Office amongst other places at Khanapur Road, Tilakwadi, Belgaum. The OPs are engaged in banking business by collecting deposits from customers & providing financial assistance to the needy businessmen & also to individuals in the course of its business. The complainant firm through its Managing Partner applied for financial assistance for the purpose of its business. The complainant availed from OPs for business purpose. The complainant has specifically pleaded in his complaint that the transaction between complainant and OPs is for the purpose of business. The loan facility availed by the complainant for running business. The complainant nowhere in the complaint has mentioned that he was carrying on his business by means of self-employment for earning his livelihood. In such circumstances the aforesaid facility falls within the purview of commercial transaction and complainant does not fall within the purview of consumer, the complainant is not a consumer. Hence the complaint is not maintainable. 

          11)    The another point arises for our consideration is, as per the objections of OPs the pre-payment charges were paid @4% + service tax for a sum of Rs.3,85,040/- by the complainant, the same was refunded to the complainant by crediting an amount of Rs.3,82,708-81 to his SB a/c No.017601512663 on 19.05.2015 based on the part of dispute of the complainant. After such credit even the complainant had withdrawn an amount of Rs.3,80,000/- on 29.05.2015. To prove this contention the OP has produced summary of SB A/c No.017601512663 as per Document-6. The complainant has not disproved or denied that particular document. With regard to the another prayer of the complainant for refund of late fee Rs.45,808/-, admittedly the complainant has paid the loan amount in question in the month of August 2014, instead of July 2014, because the calculation of principal amount and interest made was upto 31.07.2014, hence as per the terms and conditions of the agreement the OPs have calculated the amount. There is no deficiency of service on the part of OPs.

          12) The citations relied on by the complainant i.e. 2008 (III) CPJ 178 & 2008 (8V) CPJ 210 are not helpful to the case of the complainant. Taking into consideration of the facts, evidence on record and the discussion made here before there is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.

 

 

         

13)    Accordingly the following

ORDER

          The complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed. No order as to cost.

           (Order dictated, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on: 22 May 2017) 

 

 

 

MSR