This case has arisen out of a complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The fact of the case is that the complainant runs a Food Processing Unit/Firm, namely, Shree Shyam Mini Rice Mill under MSME category, registered with District Industry Centre, Uttar Dinajpur. Previously he had taken term loan and CC loan from O.P.No-1 for the purpose of running of his said unit/Firm and the transaction of his accounts are quite satisfactory.
That on 12.03.2015 complainant renewed his account and O.P sanctioned rate of interest of his loan account @ Base Rate + 2.00% and charged renewal fees of Rs.62,752/-, as because MSME scheme expired on 14.02.2014. At that time Bank Authority assured him, as and when the scheme for financing to Food and Agro Processing Unit will be renewed/reviewed, he would get return the excess renewal fees charged by the Bank Authority.
That subsequently the scheme was renewed on and from 05.12.2015 by Rural & Agree-Business Department for “Existing and Proposed Food and Agro Based Industrial Units fulfilling criterion of the scheme” and accordingly complainant vide letter No:SSMRM/UBI/2015 dated 13.12.2015 requested O.P.No-1 to revise the rate of interest of his account as base rate + 0.50% i.e 9.8%, after that unfortunately Bank have charged interest of CC account and Term Loan account in previous manner. O.P.No-1 have charged an amount of Rs.54,815/- as interest on CC A/c No:-549505040000109 & amount of Rs.91,516/- as interest on Term Loan A/c No:-549506110000012 on 19.06.2017. The above stated amount has been wrongly deducted from accounts of the complainant for the previous period without any correspondence with him.
That complainant time and again made written correspondence to O.Ps and thereafter AGM of Siliguri Regional Office of the bank, namely, Smt. Jayshree Buglary visited office of complainant with O.P.No-1 and after verifying all documents AGM in presence of O.P.No-1 assured the complainant that all the amount charged wrongly in those accounts & Bank Authority would refund the amount within a very short period. When the O.Ps did not refund it, the complainant had given a reminder letter to O.P.No-1 on 02.11.2018 & lastly complainant by letter dated 21.06.2019 inform O.Ps to refund the amount within 30 days i.d he will take shelter of Law, then O.P.No-1 by letter dated 21.08.2019 informed the complainant that he has to do nothing as because “….interest rate to be charged at that time was @ Base Rate + 2.00% in Term Loan & in Cash Credit Account, at the time Base Rate was 10.00%. During Audit on dated 03.06.2017, in Term Loan @ L Base + 0.50% in Cash Credit account which was lower than sanction advise rate. Due to this Auditor had pointed out “leakage of income in the account during Audit at Regional Office, Siliguri.”
That the complainant through his Advocate sent a letter dated 19.12.2019 claiming refund of extra amount of renewal fees charged as well as extra amount as interest charged and O.P.No-2 by their Advocate replied on 03.01.2020 which is totally baseless. Said Act of O.Ps come within the purview of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, so this complaint has been filed with a prayer for direction upon O.P.No-1 & 2 to pay excess amount of Rs.54,815/- as interest charged in CC account and Rs.91,516/- as excess interest charged in Term Loan Account in total Rs.1,46,331/- together with interest, compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- for mental pain & agony and litigation cost of Rs.25,000/-.
O.P.No-1 contested the case by filing W.V denying the case of the complainant stating that O.P.No-2 intimated about its inability to refund the amount to complainant stating that Audit was initiated as per instance of Audit Department of Zonal Office, Kolkata and leakage of income pertaining to the period from 12.03.2015 to 03.06.2017 was detected by Internal Auditor of O.P/Bank and after thorough scrutiny at Regional Office, Siliguri, it was found that the interest charged in the accounts were actual and genuinely recovered and the same was intimated to O.P.No-1 vide letter No:RO:SIL:AUD:1174-1-2019 dated 21.08.2019 & O.P.No-1 had replied the same to the complainant.
That as per sanction advice of Regional Office Ref No:RO:SIL:ADV:S.888 dated 12.03.2015 it was clearly mentioned that the interest rate to be charged at that time was @ Base Rate +2.00%. In Term Loan and Cash Credit Account at that time base Rate was 10.00%. During Audit on 03.06.2017 it was found that the interest rate charged in the system was @ MCL1Y + 3.65% i.e 12.15%. In Term Loan @ L Base + 0.50% i.e 9.80% in Cash Credit Account which was lower than sanction advice rate. Due to this Auditor had pointed out leakage of income in the account during Audit and in light thereof the proposal of refunding of charged amount did not happen and the complainant was informed by reply letter that leakage of income was not wrongly debited. O.P.No-2 intimated about its inability to refund the amount to complainant and his Advocate was informed that O.P has rightly deducted the amount, so there is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the O.Ps. The complainant field the case on flimsy ground with a mala fide intention which is not maintainable and time barred, so the O.P.No-1 prays for dismissal of the case.
P o i n t s f o r d e c i s i o n
- Whether there was/is any deficiency of service and/or fraudulent trade practice on the part of O.Ps which gives rise cause of action of this complaint?
- Is the complainant entitled to get relief(s) as prayed for?
D e c i s i o n s w i t h r e a s o n
Admittedly, the complainant Mr. Rajesh Agarwala as Proprietor used to run a food processing unit/Firm, namely, Shree Shyam Mini Rice Mill (Estd.1997) under MSME category, registered with District Industry Centre, Uttar Dinajpur at Raiganj & in previous days he had taken TL (Term Loan) & CC (Cash Credit) Loan from O.P.No-1/Union Bank of India, Raiganj Branch for the purpose of running his firm.
O.P.No-1 admits that on previous occasion Bank Authority considered the rate of interest in complainant’s loan account as per inter office letter no:-MSME:347:2013/14 dated 14.02.2014.
Complainant stated that MSME Scheme was expired on 14.02.2014 but as stated by O.P./Bank said scheme was expired on 31.12.2014. So in his/their account(s) renewal was/were due, but the complainant did not renewed the account(s) in time, as per terms and condition of loan documents/agreement.
It is admitted that on 12.03.2015 complainant’s loan account was renewed as per the Sanction Advice of Regional Office of the Bank under Ref No:RO:SIL:ADV:S:888 & the Bank sanctioned rate of interest of loan account @Base Rate +2.00% and charged renewal fee of Rs.62,752/- on 12.03.2015. Sanction advice is produced which shows Means (Reported worth) date:31.03.2014 (ABS) TNW-Rs.85.61 Lacs, guaranteed by Mrs. Punam Agarwala, Means of the Guarantor:Total Means:Rs.31.38 Lacs.
The complainant stated that at that time Bank Authority assured him, as and when the scheme for financing to Food & Agro Processing Units will be renewed/reviewed, complainant would get return the excess renewal fees charged by the Bank Authority. As O.P/Bank denied, it needs corroboration, but non corroborates, hence not proved.
It appears that by letter vide Ref No:-SSMRM/UBI/2015, dated 21.03.2015 the complainant requested the Bank to refund 50% of the total renewal fee charged in their loan account, No:504/109 as the finance of the Mill comes under the Cluster Scheme of Food Processing Industry w.e.f 14.02.2014(as per Circular No:MSME:347:2013-14 dated 14.02.2014).
It further appears that O.P.No-1 requested O.P.No-2 to consider the prayer of the complainant vide Ref No:-BM/ADV/579 dated 24.03.2015 & O.P.No-2 by his letter vide Ref No:-RO:SIL:ADV dated 26.03.2015 informed O.P.No-1 “confirming that the said cluster scheme (expired on 31.12.2014) is not reviewed/renewed by the Competent Authority. Branch is advised to recommend the proposal for refund the fees as applicable to the scheme after getting renewed by the competent authority.
That after issue of Information Circular No:-495/2015 dated 05 Dec 2015, by the Competent Authority of the bank, the complainant applied for rectification of rate of interest in their CC and TL accounts w.e.f 05.12.2015 & the Bank Authority reduced the rate of interest in their account to @ Base Rate + 0.50% and hence effective rate of interest on their account comes @9.80%.
It is admitted that the O.P/Bank has charged an amount of Rs.54,815/- as interest on CC A/c No:-549505040000109 (In short 504/109) & an amount of Rs.91,516/- as interest on TL A/c No:-549506110000012 (In short 611/12) on 19.06.2017 & deducted the same from their accounts for the period from 12.03.2015 to 03.06.2017.
It appears that vide letter Ref No: SSMRM/UBI/2017, dated 07.07.2017 the complainant claimed refund of interest charged in their account nos 504/109 & 611/12, on the plea that “as we are not liable to pay any interest over and above the interest put in the system i.e 9.80% as per Bank’s last renewal of account. The complainant again requested the same by letter vide Ref No:-SSMRM/UBI/2018 dated 02.11.2018 & another letter vide No:-SSMRM/UBI/2019, dated 21.06.2019. In last letter he added “together with the interest on the excess amount from the date of charge and up to date of refund within 30 days or we have no other alternative to take shelter of Law.”
Admittedly, O.P/Bank by its letter dated 21.08.2019 informed the complainant that “the reply received from Regional Office Siliguri under Ref No:-RO:SIL:AUD:1174-1-2019, dated 21.08.2019 that the leakage of income was not wrongly debited, the leakage of income was detected by our Internal Auditor deputed by Zonal Audit Office, Kolkata as per prevailing guidelines.
As per sanction advice from Regional Office under Ref No:-RO:SIL:ADV:S:888, dated 12.03.2015 it was clearly mentioned that the interest rate to be charged at that time was @ Base Rate + 2.00% in Term Loan and in cash Credit Account, at that time Base Rate was 10.00% . During Audit on dated 03.06.2017, in Term Loan @ L Base + 0.50% i.e 9.80% found in Cash Credit Account, which was lower than sanction advice rate. Due to this Auditor have pointed out leakage of income in the account during Audit at Regional Office, Siliguri. In light of the above mentioned facts the proposal of refunding of charged amount did not happen.
It is argued by Ld. Advocate of O.P/Bank that the amount has not been wrongly deducted on 19.06.2017 from the account of the complainant, rather the complainant has failed to fulfill the criterion of the scheme for financing to Food and Agro Processing Units in terms of Information Circular No:-495/2015, dated 05 Dec 2015, So the O.P/Bank could not refund the same and the O.P had communicated the same to the complainant on 21.08.2019.
That leakage of income pertaining the period from 12.03.2015 to 03.06.2017 was detected by the Internal Auditor of O.P/Bank as per the prevailing guidelines (Master Circular of RBI in respect of revenue leakage is produced.) & a list(produced) has been published containing number of accounts for verification of rate of interest under Siliguri, Regional Office for amount of Rs.1,00,000,00/- that the rate of interest is to be read as MCL 1 Y + 3.65% i.e 12.15% but in this case the rate of interest was wrongly charged @9.80% for the period from 12.03.2015 to 03.06.2017.
It appears that the complainant through his Advocate sent notice dated 19.12.2019 to the O.Ps claiming refund of charged amount together with interest for the period on wrongly debited amount, within 15 days after receiving the letter, failing which to move before appropriate Forum for redressal.
Further it appears that O.P/Bank through their Advocate replied by letter dated 03.01.2020 to complainant’s Advocate that complainants claim is bad in law and he is not entitled to proceed for any legal remedy & dates of both the letters are mentioned as cause of action in filing the complaint dated 13.02.2020.
In the present case the Auditor pointed out the leakage of income of O.P/Bank and thereafter Bank has to rectify the irregularity, which they have done and if the complainant is dissatisfied with the finding of Auditor the complainant had to move Appellate Authority & if needed, to lodge complaint before Banking Ombudsman.
Under above facts and discussion, we are of the considered view that the complainant had to avail opportunity to move Appellate Authority and Banking Ombudsman, instead he chooses to lodge the complaint, which shows breach of contract on the part of the complainant, not tenable and we find no deficiency in service and/or fraudulent trade practice on the part of O.P/bank Authority, so the complainant is not entitled to get relief as prayed for.
In the result the claim fails. Hence, it is,
O R D E R E D
that the C.C No-09/2020 be and the same is dismissed on contest against O.Ps but without any cost.
Let a copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.
