Haryana

Karnal

CC/89/2016

M/s Vital Grains Private Limited - Complainant(s)

Versus

Yes Bank Limited - Opp.Party(s)

S.R. Bansal

04 Jan 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No.89 of 2016

                                                         Date of instt. 21.3.2016

                                                         Date of decision:04.01.2018

 

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

                                                                                                                                                                        …….Complainant.      

                                        Versus

 

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

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

                                         

                                                                     …..Opposite Parties.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.            

 

Before   Sh. Jagmal Singh……President.

      Ms. Veena Rani ………..Member.

      Sh. Anil Sharma………Member

             

 

 Present  Shri S.R.Bansal Advocate for complainant.

               Shri Hemant Sharma Advocate for OPs.

               

ORDER:                    

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that complainant has been running a floor mill under the name and style of M/s Vital Grains Pvt. Ltd. was having his CC limit and the same was clear and the OPs charged Rs.6,84,000/-as fore-closure charges which were paid under protest. The OPs have charged this amount of Rs.6,84,000/- illegally, wrongly and without any term and condition. NOC was issued by the OP. The complainant requested to refund the said amount so paid as fore-closure charges against the CC limit account. There is great deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. After the payment of fore-closure charges, a registered AD notice dated 26.9.2015 was also given to the OPs on 1.10.2015 but the OPs had not made any reply. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, who appeared and filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; locus standi and cause of action; jurisdiction and has not come within the category of “consumer”. On merits, it has been submitted that complainant had approached the OP bank with the request for grant of working capital facilities and as per the arrangement agreed between the complainant and the OP bank, cash credit facilities of Rs.2,00,00,000/- were sanctioned to the complainant in the month of May, 2012 under the facility letter bearing no.YBL/DEL/BB/FL/78/2012-13 dated May 9, 2012. The bank had enhanced the CC limit on the request of the complainant vide letter having reference no. YBL/DEL/BB/FL/165/ 2015-2016 dated May 5, 2015 under which an enhanced amount of Rs.3,00,00,000/- was sanctioned. It has further been submitted that in case the complainant wanted to prepay/pre close the facility, an amount equivalent to 2% of the sanctioned amount shall be payable as prepayment/ preclosure charges. Such condition on prepayment was duly contained in the first facility letter dated May 9, 2012 as well latest amendment/enhancement facility letter dated May 5, 2015 as referred above and states “Prepayment/pre-closure of any of the above credit facility will attract prepayment/preclosure charges @ 2% of the sanctioned limit.”  The complainant accepted the above terms and conditions of the CC limit. Hence OPs were not liable to refund any amount to the complainant. It has further been submitted that complainant has utilized the said CC limit for the purposes of working capital requirement as such the services offered by the OP bank to the complainant were commercial in nature. Therefore, the complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer and as such the present complaint should be dismissed on this ground.

3.             Complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of Preet Mohan Singh Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8 and closed the evidence on 28.2.2016.

4.             On the other hand, OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Harsimranjeet Singh Ex.OPW1 and documents Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP4 and closed the evidence on 17.5.2017.

5.             We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.            

6.             It is alleged by the complainant that he has been running a floor mill and was having CC limit with OPs. It is further alleged that the CC limit was cleared and the OPs charged Rs.6,84,000/- being for-closure charges which were paid under protest. The fore-closure charges were charged against law and facts and without any reason. The complainant demanded the same but the OPs refused to refund the same.

7.             The OPs contended that the cash credit facility was provided to the complainant by the OPs for the purposes of working capital requirements as such services offered were commercial in nature, therefore, the complainant is not a consumer as per definition of the consumer as defined in the C.P.Act. It is further contended that CC facilities of Rs. 2 crore were sanctioned in May, 2012 and the same was enhanced to Rs.3 crore vide letter dated 5.5.2015 and complainant has not mentioned the same intentionally in his complaint, hence this Forum has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try this complaint. It is further contended that it was very specifically and explicitly mentioned in the sanction letters dated 9.5.2012 Ex.OP-1 and dated 5.5.2015 Ex.OP-2 that prepayment/pre-closure of any of the above credit facility will attract prepayment/pre-closure charges @ 2% of the sanctioned limit.” According to these clauses the amount has been charged for fore-closure and same are charged as per law.

8.             From the pleadings and evidence of the case, it is clear that the complainant was running a flour mill which is commercial in nature. Moreover, it has not been mentioned in the complaint that the said business was done by the complainant for his livelihood by means of self employment. Therefore, the activities of the complainant are commercial in nature, hence the complainant has not come within the definition of consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act.

9.             The CC limit sanctioned by the OPs in favour of complainant was Rs.3 crore and this fact has not been denied by the

complainant at the time of argument. Rather the complainant argued that the dispute is with regard to fore-closure charges i.e. Rs.6,84,000/-, so this Forum has jurisdiction to try this complaint. In this regard we can rely upon the authority 2016 (4) CLT-133 (NC) titled as Parikshit Parasher Versus Universal Buildwell Private Limited & Ors. wherein it is held by the Hon’ble National Commission that the issues relating to the interpretation of section 12(1)( C) of the C.P. Act were referred by a two members bench of this Commission (National Commission), to a larger Bench for its decision. The larger bench of the Hon’ble National Commission has decided the issue regarding the pecuniary jurisdiction in para no.14 of this authority as under:-

Issue no.(i)

 It is evident from a bare perusal of section 21, 17 and 11 of the Consumer Protection Act that it’s the value of the goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed which determines the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum. The Act does not envisage determination of the pecuniary jurisdiction based upon the cost of removing the deficiencies in the goods purchased or the services to be rendered to the consumer. Therefore, the cost of removing the defects or deficiencies in the goods or the services would have no bearing on the determination of the pecuniary jurisdiction. If the aggregate of the value of the goods purchased or the services hire or availed of by a consumer, when added to the compensation, if any, claimed in the complaint by him, exceeds Rs.1.00 crore, it is this commission alone which would have the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. For instance if a person purchases a machine for more than Rs.1.00 crore, a manufacturing defect is found in the machine and the cost of removing the said defect is Rs.10.00 lakhs, it is the aggregate of the sale consideration paid by the consumer for the machine and compensation, if any, claimed in the complaint which would determine the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum.  Similarly, if for instance a house is sold for more than Rs.1.00 crores, certain defects are found in the house, and the cost of removing these defects is Rs.5.00 lakhs, the complaint would have to be filed before this Commission, the value of services itself being more than Rs.1.00 crore.”  

According to this authority, the total value of the property is to be taken and not the relief claim so the value for the purpose of jurisdiction is Rs.3 crore and not Rs.6,84,000/-. Hence this Forum has also no jurisdiction to try the present complaint.

10.                 The OPs have placed on the file sanction letter dated 9.5.2012 Ex.OP-1 and enhanced sanctioned letter dated 5.5.2015 Ex.OP-2. The last letter is dated 5.5.2015 i.e. Ex.OP-2 which is material for the just decision of the case. On the perusal of letter Ex.OP-2, it is clearly mentioned in terms and condition no.12 that prepayment/pre-closure of any of the above credit facility will attract prepayment/pre-closure charge @ 2% of the entire sanctioned limit. These terms and conditions are signed by the complainant which means, the complainant agreed to the same. The complainant has produced some advices issued by the RBI at the time of argument but the same are regarding the Home Loans and not regarding the CC limit, so the same are not applicable to the facts of the present case. In these facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the complainant has failed to prove that the OPs have charged the pre-closure charges wrongly and against the terms and conditions of the CC limit. Hence no deficiency on the part of the OPs is proved.

11.           Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we dismiss the complaint on the ground of jurisdiction and the complainant being not consumer as well as on merits also. No order as costs. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 04.01.2018

                                                                  

                                                                  President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                        Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

 

                        (Veena Rani)       (Anil Sharma)

                          Member                Member