West Bengal

Siliguri

CC/25/2019

CITY STEEL INDUSTRIES - Complainant(s)

Versus

UNION BANK OF INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

RATHIN SARKAR

11 Apr 2019

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Siliguri
Kshudiram Basu Bipanan Kendra (2nd Floor)
H. C. Road, P.O. and P.S. Prodhan Nagar,
Dist. Darjeeling.
 
Complaint Case No. CC/25/2019
( Date of Filing : 02 Apr 2019 )
 
1. CITY STEEL INDUSTRIES
OFFICE AT CITY GARDEN,SEVOKE ROAD,P.O & P.S.-SILIGURI,DIST-DARJEELING.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. UNION BANK OF INDIA
OFFICE AT UNION BANK BHAWAN,239,VIDHAN BHAVAN MARG,NARIMAN POINT,MUMBAI-400021 IN THE STATE OF MAHARASTRA.
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER
UNION BANK OF INDIA,HAVING ITS OFFICE AT DBC ROAD, DESHBANDHU PARA,P.O & P.S.-SILIGURI,DIST-DARJEELING,PIN-734001.
3. THE CHIEF/REGIONAL BRANCH MANAGER,
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT SACHIN-SOURAV APARTMENT, ASHUTOSH MUKHERJEE ROAD, COLLEGE PARA,P.O & P.S.- SILIGURI, DIST-DARJEELING.
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. Shri Subhabrata Chaudhuri PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. Shri Tapan Kumar Barman MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:RATHIN SARKAR, Advocate
For the Opp. Party:
Dated : 11 Apr 2019
Final Order / Judgement

To-day is fixed for admission hearing.

Complainant’s advocate files hazira.

Heard the Ld. advocate for the Complainant. Perused the complaint and the documents thereto.

The case of the complainant is, in brief, that he was sanctioned a cash credit loan of Rs. 4,00,00,000/- (four crore rupees) only by OP No.2 on 05.10.2015 for running his business.  From the monthly interest report from December, 2015 to 12.07.2017, it appeared to the complainant that the OP no.2 illegally charged and deducted an amount of Rs. 4,16,722/- for the period from 10.02.2016 to 31.07.2017 towards penal interest as the stock statement has not been submitted by the complainant.

But he complainant firm has been submitting their stock statement regularly to the OP No.2.  The complainant rushed to the OP No.2 and expressed his grievance and demanded refund of the illegally charged penal interest.  The OP No.2 verbally agreed to look into the matter seriously.

Finding no positive steps from the end of the OP No.2 the complainant served a lawyer’s notice to the OP No.2 & 3 on 02.05.2018 but the said notice remained unreplied to.  Hence is the case.

Considered. The loan amount exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum. Had the amount of Rs. 4,16,722/- not been the interest amount, the case would have remained within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum. It is the principal amount out of which any interest accrues.

Moreover, since the loan a/c was closed on 31.07.2017, the complainant remains no more a consumer on the date of filing the complaint, i.e., 02.04.2019.

Thus the case is hit respectively by section 11(I) and 2(d) of the C.P. Act and hence not admitted.

 

 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Shri Subhabrata Chaudhuri]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MR. Shri Tapan Kumar Barman]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.