DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
DATED THIS THE 6th DAY OF MAY, 2024.
PRESENT : SRI VINAY MENON .V, PRESIDENT.
: SMT. VIDYA.A., MEMBER.
: SRI. KRISHNANKUTTY N .K, MEMBER.
Date Of Filing: 31.08.2022.
CC/163/2022
M/s.Royal Rich Air Travel Services Pvt. Ltd., - Complainant
1st Floor, Sanjor Tower,
Opposite KSRTC Bus Stand,
Palakkad-678 014.
Represented by the Managing Director.
(By Adv.Manoj Ambat)
Vs
UCO Bank, Palakkad Branch, -Opposite Party
31/776(1), Market Road,
Palakkad-678 014.
Represented by the Manager.
(By Adv. Aswin K.Anand)
ORDER
BY SRI. KRISHNANKUTTY N .K, MEMBER.
Pleadings of the complainant.
1. The complaint is about the commission and other charges collected by the opposite party for the guarantee issued by the opposite party in favour of Government of India for their recruitment business. The original amount of guarantee issued was Rs.3 lakhs which was subsequently enhanced to Rs.5 lakhs and again to Rs.15 lakhs for which cash margin of Rs.5 lakh and collateral security of Rs.10 lakhs were given by the complainant. When the Bank guarantee for 15 lakhs was issued, the opposite party collected Rs.54,162/- as process fee from 17.08.2011 to 09.09.2016. The said guarantee was then extended upto 16.02.2020 and further upto 15.09.2025. The opposite party had collected Rs.2,24,490/- as charges on these guarantees.
Due to Covid Pandemic, when the norms were relaxed by the Government of India, the said guarantee was released by the Government. When the complainant approached the opposite party for cancellation of the guarantee, they demanded an additional amount of Rs.3,43,729/- as process fees for cancelling the guarantee and to give back the securities. The allegations raised by the complainant on the opposite party are as follows;
a) The complainant has already paid Rs.2,24,490/- as various charges on the said guarantee on 09.09.2016.
b) At the time of renewal, the opposite party had not informed the complainant about the additional process fees and hence, the demand made is illegal and unsustainable.
c) The complainant sent a letter asking for the details of additional amount, but the opposite party replied giving unclear data and details.
According to the complainant, the act of the opposite party demanding additional amount as process fee is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. Hence approached this Commission seeking the following reliefs;
a) Direct the opposite party to release the Bank guarantee without charging any additional fee.
b) Direct the opposite party to release the fixed deposit and collateral security given as security for the guarantee.
c) Direct the opposite party to pay Rs.10 lakhs as compensation for mental and physical trauma and also financial loss suffered by the complainant.
d) Direct the opposite party to pay litigation expenses and cost of the complaint etc.
2. Notice was issued to the opposite party. They entered appearance and filed their version giving the detailed calculations of the amount payable by the complainant as per the guidelines issued from their corporate office from time to time. According to them, the amount actually to be collected from the complainant is Rs.3,84,046/- and hence the amount claimed from the complainant (Rs.3,43,729/-)is less than actual amount due from the complainant.
3. Based on the pleadings of the complainant and opposite party, the following issues were framed for adjudication.
1) Whether the opposite party is demanding processing charges for the Bank Guarantee over and above the agreed rates or any stipulation by the regulator (RBI)?
2) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
3) Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief claimed?
4) Reliefs as to cost and compensation.
4. The complainant filed proof affidavit and marked Exts.A1 to A8 as evidence.
Ext.A1: Copy of the Bank guarantee dated 17.08.2011 issued by the opposite party.
Ext.A2: Copy of guarantee extension letter dated 09.09.2016.
Ext.A3: Copy of guarantee release letter issued by the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India.
Ext.A4: Copy of letter issued by the opposite party to the complainant dated 25.02.2022.
Ext.A5: Copy of letter addressed by the complainant to the opposite party dated Nil.
Ext.A6: Copy of letter addressed by the complainant to the opposite party dated 09.03.2022.
Ext.A7: Copy of the letter dated 18.03.2022 issued by the opposite party to the complainant.
Ext.A8: Copy of the Bank account statement of the complainant.
Issue No.1
5. In the version filed, the opposite party has clearly explained that they arrived at the additional amount to be collected from the complainant as commission as per the guidelines issued from their corporate office from time to time in line with the directives of RBI. The complainant has not adduced any evidence as to why/how they claimed that the amount demanded by the opposite party is over and above the rates of chargeable on such guarantee as per the direction of RBI/Bank. The complaint did not mark even the sanction conveying letter issued by the opposite party which stipulates of commission and other charges payable. Further, the complaint could have very well taken steps to get the sanction and other related documents from the opposite party to prove their contentions. In the absence of these, this Commission is not in a position to conclude that the charges demanded by the opposite party is illegitimate or illegal. Hence, the decision will go in favour of the opposite party.
Issue No.2, 3 and 4
6. As the complainant failed to prove that the charges demanded is over and above the opposite party’s entitlement, issue No.2 is decided in favour of the opposite party. As the deficiency in service is not proved against the opposite party the complaint is dismissed. The complainant is not entitled any reliefs.
Pronounced in open court on this the 6th day of May, 2024.
Sd/-
VINAY MENON .V,
PRESIDENT.
Sd/-
KRISHNANKUTTY N .K,
MEMBER.
APPENDIX
Documents marked from the side of the complainant:
Ext.A1: Copy of the Bank guarantee dated 17.08.2011 issued by the opposite party.
Ext.A2: Copy of guarantee extension letter dated 09.09.2016.
Ext.A3: Copy of guarantee release letter issued by the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India.
Ext.A4: Copy of letter issued by the opposite party to the complainant dated 25.02.2022.
Ext.A5: Copy of letter addressed by the complainant to the opposite party dated Nil.
Ext.A6: Copy of letter addressed by the complainant to the opposite party dated 09.03.2022.
Ext.A7: Copy of the letter dated 18.03.2022 issued by the opposite party to the complainant.
Ext.A8: Copy of the Bank account statement of the complainant.
Documents marked from the side of opposite parties: Nil
Witness examined from the complainant’s side: NIL
Witness examined from the opposite parties side: NIL
Cost : Nil.
NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.
