Haryana

StateCommission

A/246/2018

VITAL GRAINS - Complainant(s)

Versus

YES BANK AND ANOTHER - Opp.Party(s)

S.R.BANSAL

21 Feb 2019

ORDER

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

 

                                                First Appeal No.246 of 2018

Date of the Institution: 27.02.2018

Date of Decision:21.02.2019

 

M/s Vital Grains Pvt. Ltd. Madanpujr Road, Karnal through its proprietor Mr. Preet Mohan Singh.

                                                                             .….Appellant

 

Versus

 

1.      Yes Bank Limited, Ground floor, SCO 253, Sector-12, Urban Estate, Karnal-132001 through its Branch Manager.

2.      M/s Yes Bank Limited, SCO 151-152, Sector 9-C, HQ Madhya Marg, Chandigarh, through Chairman.

                                                                             .….Respondents

 

CORAM:    Mr.Ram Singh Chaudhary, Judicial Member

                   Mrs. Manjula, Member                  

 

 

Present:-    Mr.S.R.Bansal, Advocate for the appellant.

                    Mr.D.K.Singhal, Advocate for the respondents.

 

O R D E R

 

RAM SINGH CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

          Delay in filing the appeal is condoned for the reasons stated in the application filed for condonation of delay.

2.      Briefly stated, the facts narrated in the complaint are that the complainant has been running a floor mill under the name and style of M/s Vital Grains Pvt. Ltd.  The complainant-appellant was having C.C. Limit and the same was cleared with the respondent’s Bank including a payment of Rs.6,84,000/- being charged as fore-closure charges under protest.  The Ops have charged the above said amount illegally.  NOC was issued by the Ops.  The complainant requested the O.Ps. to refund the aforesaid amount, but, to no avail.  Thus there was deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the O.ps.

3.      The complaint was resisted by the O.Ps.- bank by filing its written reply before the District Forum, in which, O.P. alleged that the bank sanctioned Rs.2,00,00,000/- cash credit facility to the complainant in the month of May 2012.  The cash credit facility was enhanced on the request of the complainant vide letter dated 05.05.2015. The O.Ps. further submitted that prepayment/pre-closure of any of the above credit facility will attract prepayment/preclosure charges @ 2% of the sanctioned limit. The complainant accepted the terms and conditions of CC Limit.  The O.Ps. were not liable to refund any amount.  Preliminary objections about the maintainability of complaint, locus standi, accruing cause of action, consumer, jurisdiction etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint.

4.      After hearing both the parties, learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Karnal (In short “District Forum”) dismissed the complaint vide order dated 04.01.2018.

5.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, complainant-appellant has preferred this appeal.

6.      The argument have been advanced by Mr.S.R.Bansal, the learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr.D.K.Singhal, the learned counsel for the respondents. With their kind assistance the entire records of the appeal as well as District Forum record had been properly perused and examined.

7.      The basic and foremost question  on the basis of the contentions raised on behalf of the parties arises for consideration and adjudication before this Commission is as to whether the complaint has been rightly dismissed by the learned District Forum, Karnal on the sole ground of pecuniary jurisdiction.

8.      In that eventuality, the Commission comes to the conclusion that the learned District Forum has no pecuniary jurisdiction, as a natural corollary, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

9.      In case, a contrary view is taken, in that eventuality, the order of the learned District Forum would not be sustainable under the eyes of law.

10.    As per the admitted facts, the present appellant has raised a loan of rupees more than three crores in cash credit form for running a floor mill.  There is a clause in the relevant documents that in case of foreclosure 2%  of the total sanctioned amount would be charged as a pre closure amount.   In this case, this is a case of fore-closure, as a consequence thereof, the banker has charged the fore-closure charges for which, the initial complaint was dismissed on the ground that  the total amount involved in purchase of the goods, rendering the services paid or promised is more than Rs.Three crores, and as such, for want of the pecuniary jurisdiction, the complaint was dismissed.  In order to distinguish the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble National Commission titled as Ruhi Seth Vs. IREO Grace Realtech Pvt. Ltd.  (2008) CPJ 298 NC and Ambrish Kumar Shukla & Ors. Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. 1 (2017) CPJ 1 (NC), it has been specifically argued on behalf of the appellant that as per the ratio laid down in Ruhi Seth (supra) case, since the refund of a particular amount is sought, which is less than twenty lacs, in that situation, the learned District forum Karnal was having a pecuniary jurisdiction, but, the complaint has illegally been dismissed.

11.    It is true that in Ruhi Seth (supra) case, a contrary opinion has been taken by the Hon’ble National Commission  with that of Ambrish Shukla (supra) case delivered by a larger bench and as per the rule of prudence, the ratio laid down by the larger bench would prevail upon the opinion expressed by a single bench of the Hon’ble National Commission.  Since for the sake of repetition, the total amount involved in this case is more than three crores and only to seek recovery of fore-closure charges, as such, the complaint is not legally maintainable and the entire amount, which is a subject matter of the dispute has to be included or to be counted for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction. Since the amount is even more than three crores, even the State Commission is not competent to entertain the complaint and what to talk about allowing the appeal.

12.    When a particular query was put up to the learned counsel for the appellant that when the loan has been taken for running a floor mill which is vehemently a commercial activity then how the complainant falls within the definition of consumer.  The question was not properly answered  by the counsel for the appellant and in the considered opinion of this commission, the complainant even does not fall within the ambit and definition of a “consumer” as enshrined in Section 2 (i) (g) and 21 (a) (i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  Since the appellant has not been found to be a consumer, as a result thereof, the complaint has rightly been dismissed.  The order passed by the learned District Forum does not suffer from any illegality and the appeal being devoid of merits and also stands dismissed.  However, in the interest of justice and equity, the complainant is put at liberty to approach the appropriate fora, if so legally advised.

 

February 21st, 2019                        Manjula                      Ram Singh Chaudhary,                                                                Member                      Judicial Member                                                                               Addl.Bench               Addl.Bench             

S.K.