Haryana

Karnal

538/2012

M/s Gopal Rice Mills - Complainant(s)

Versus

Unior Bank Of India - Opp.Party(s)

Ashok Gupta

08 Sep 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No.538 of 2012

                                                               Date of instt. 15.11.2012

                                                               Date of decision: 17.11.2015

 

M/s Gopal Rice Mills, Sambhli Road, Nissing, District Karnal, through its Partner.

                                                                  ……..Complainant.

                                  Vs.

1.Chief Manager, cum Managing Director, Union Bank of India, Nariman Point, Union Bank Bhawan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai.

 

2.Manager, Union Bank of India, GT Road, Karnal.

                                                           ……… Opposite Parties.

 

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer

                     Protection Act.

 

Before          Sh.K.C.Sharma……. President.

                   Sh.Anil Sharma ………Member.

                   Smt.Shashi Sharma…..Member. 

 

 Present:       Sh.Ashok Gupta Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.C.J.Wadhwa Advocate for the Ops.

ORDER:

                  

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986,  on the averments that Opposite parties  ( in short Ops)  had sanctioned cash credit limit of Rs.six crores for the complainant on 14.9.2009 and the said limit was due for renewal after one year in September, 2010. The complainant requested the Ops for reducing interest as other banks were offering loan on much lower rate. Request was also made by the complainant for enhancement of the limit from Rs.six crores to 12 crores.  On those conditions, the complainant submitted the documents for renewal and enhancement.  However, the complainant did not receive any positive indication from Ops for more than one month. As  season of rice milling was in progress, the complainant applied for sanctioning of the limit to HDFC bank   and the said bank was ready to grant limit at their terms. Thereafter, the complainant intimated the Ops that the firm did not require any limit as the HDFC bank had sanctioned the limit.  In  retaliation thereto, the Ops  without intimating the status of the proposal  and  without consent of the complainant, debited process fee of Rs.2,34,386/-, in the account of the complainant. Action of the Ops was unfair trade practice, because according to the banking system, process  fee could be charged only after getting consent of the parties on the proposal  of sanction of limit. The complainant requested the Ops for refund of the process fee, but the Ops refused to do so. Ultimately, the complainant served legal notice dated 13.2.2012 on the Ops, but the same also did not yield any result.

 

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the Ops, who put into appearance and filed written statement controverting the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that  complaint is not maintainable in the present form;that complainant has no loucs standi and cause of action to file the present complaint; that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint; that complaint is barred by principle of resjudicata, because the complainant had already filed a complaint before the Banking Ombudsman Tribunal, which was dismissed; that the complainant is estopped from  filing the present complaint by its  acts and conduct and  that the complaint is an abuse of the process of law and has been filed with malafide intention only to put pressure and harass the Ops to get the amount refunded  illegally.

         

                   On merits, it has been submitted that renewal of the limit of the complainant firm was due in the month of August, 2010 and as such OP no.2 sent letter to the complainant on 3.7.2010. Thereafter, the complainant submitted the required documents for renewal of the limit as well as for extension  of limit from Rs.six crores to ten crores alongwith the letter dated 13.7.2010.  On request of the complainant, the Ops processed the case of the complainant for renewal and extension of the limit. Thereafter, the limit of the complainant was renewed and sanction for  extension of limit was also given, vide letter dated 12.10.2010.   On 21.10.2010, the process fee was charged as per guidelines of the bank from. During the process regarding renewal and extension of limit from 3.7.2010 to 21.10.2010 neither any request nor any complaint was made by the complainant to the officials of the bank and on 23.10.2010 the complainant sent  letter to the OP no.2 that HDFC was charging 9 % interest, therefore, the complainant did not require cash credit limit and requested for refund of the process charges. In this way, neither there was any deficiency in services nor any unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops, rather the complainant adopted unfair trade practice after sanction of the enhanced limit and charging the process fee. It has been denied that the complainant intimated the Ops on 19.10.2010 that it did not require any limit  or HDFC Bank had sanctioned the loan.  It has been averred that complainant moved the application on 23.10.2010  when all the process was completed and fee was charged. The other allegations made in the  complaint have been denied.

 

3.                In evidence of the complainant,  affidavit of Sh.Gaurav Singla  Ex.C1 and documents  Ex.C2 to Ex.C17 have been tendered.

 

4.                On the other hand, in evidence of the Ops affidavit of Sh.S.S.Dhamia Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.O1 to Ex.O4 have been tendered.

 

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file very carefully.

 

6.                The parties are not in dispute regarding sanctioning of the cash credit limit of Rs.six corres  by the Ops and making request by the complainant after one year for renewal of cash credit limit and enhancing the same. The complainant has alleged that the  firm wanted to get extended the limit upto Rs.12.00 crores, whereas  according to the case of the Ops the request was made  to enhance the limit to Rs.10.00 crores.

 

7.                The chief Manager, of the bank  wrote letter dated 3.7.2010 to the complainant for renewal of the cash credit limit of the complainant, which was due  in August, 2010,  as is evident from the copy of letter Ex.O1.   On 13.10.2010 the complainant moved letter to the Chief Manager, the copy of which is  Annexure-2,  and made request for enhancement of the cash credit limit from Rs.6.00 crores to Rs.10.00 crores and submitted the audited balance sheet of the firm for the year 2009-2010 alongwith CMA data. The letter of the bank dated 12.10.2010, the copy of which is  Ex.O3, shows that the bank informed the complainant that cash credit limit of the complainant for Rs.10.00 crores was sanctioned .  The rate of interest and other conditions were also mentioned in the said letter. Thereafter, the complainant wrote letter dated 23.10.2010 to the Chief Manager of the bank, the copy of which is Ex. O4, submitting therein that cash credit limit of Rs.12.00 crores  was required on account of expansion of business but the bank sanctioned the limit for Rs.10.00 crore and that too on the rate of interest 11% whereas the HDFC bank was ready to sanction the cash credit limit at the rate of interest 9%, therefore, the complainant was not ready  for the cash credit limit and requested for refund of the process charges. The language of this letter makes it quite clear that that cash credit limit of the complainant for Rs.10.00 crores  was sanctioned and process charges were claimed by  the Ops before sending the letter dated 23.10.2010 and by that time the HDFC bank had not sanctioned the cash credit limit and was only ready to sanction.

 

8.                The complainant in para no.6 of the complainant alleged that intimation was given by the complainant to the Ops on 19.10.2010 that the firm did not require any limit from Ops as the HDFC bank had sanctioned the  limit. However, no such letter dated 19.10.2010 has been produced by the complainant to substantiate  the plea put forth by it. The cash credit limit of the complainant was already enhanced by the Ops and intimation thereof was sent to the complainant, vide letter dated 12.10.2010 Ex.O3. The affidavit filed by Gopal Singla partner of the complainant firm that Ops were informed about the intention of the complainant that firm did not want  to enhancement  of the limit as the HDFC bank had already sanctioned the cash credit limit  at much lower rate of interest, cannot be taken to be the gospell truth because there is no other evidence to lend support to such plea. Even the document, vide which HDFC Bank had sanctioned the cash credit limit of the complainant has not been produced for the reasons best known to the complainant. The allegations of the

complainant that firm had requested the Ops for enhancement of the limit from  Rs.6.00 crores to Rs.12.00 crores has been falsified from the letter of the complainant dated 13.7.2010 Ex.O2, wherein  request was made for enhancement of the limit from Rs.6.00 crores to Rs.10.00 crores. Thus from the afore discussed evidence of the parties, it is clearly established that complainant  applied for extension of the cash credit limit from Rs.6.00 crores to Rs.10.00 crores vide  letter dated 13.7.2010 and the Ops had sanctioned the said limit on 12.10.2010 and sent intimation thereof to the complainant. After sanctioning of the limit by the OPs, the letter dated 23.10.2010 sent by the complainant expressing intention not to get sanctioned the enhanced  limit as the HDFC Bank was willing to grant limit on much lower rate of interest, was of no help to the complainant, because once process of the sanctioning  limit by the OP was completed, the Ops became entitled to charge the process fee. It is also  worth while to  add that complainant made complaints to the various authorities and even to the  Bank Ombudsman regarding charging of the process fee by the Ops.  Even the Bank Ombudsman opined that bank renewed the limit and charged process fee as per guidelines and there was no apparent deficiency in services on the part of the bank. Therefore, claim of the complainant was closed.

 

9.                In view of the afore discussed facts and circumstances, we do not  find any deficiency in services or  unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops. Consequently, the com plaint merits dismissal. Hence the complaint is hereby  dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced
dated:17.11.2015                                                                             

                                                                    (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 (Anil Sharma)       (Smt.Shashi Sharma)    

   Member.                             Member

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Present:        Sh.Ashok Gupta Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.C.J.Wadhwa Advocate for the Ops.

 

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide our separate order of the even date, the present complaint has been dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced
dated:17.11.2015                                                                             

                                                                    (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 (Anil Sharma)       (Smt.Shashi Sharma)    

   Member.                             Member