Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/424/2020

Smt. Shashi Kala Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Standard chartered Bank - Opp.Party(s)

S.K. Sud

13 Sep 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/424/2020
Date of Institution	:	5/10/2020
Date of Decision	:	13/9/2023

 

1.   Smt. Shashi Kala Gupta wife of Sh. Satinder Kumar Gupta, resident of House NO.1, Sector 12, Panchkula (Haryana),

2.   Sh. Satinder Kumar Gupta, son of Sh. Des Raj Gupta resident of House No.1, Sector 12, Panchkula (Haryana).

3.   Sh. Tarun Gupta son of Sh. Satinder Kumar Gupta, resident of House No.1, Sector-12, Panchkula(Haryana).

4.   Tanuj Roshi Poultry Farm having its head office at House No.1, Sector 12, Panchkula through its proprietor Smt. Shashi Kala Gupta wife of Sh. Satinder Kumar Gupta, resident of House No.1, Sector 12, Panchkula (Haryana).

 

… Complainants

V E R S U S

1.   Standard Chartered Bank, Head office: C-38/39, G-Block Crescenzo Building, Bandra Kurla Complex-Bandra East, opposite Mumbai Cricket Association Club, Mumbai-400051 through its Managing Director.

2.   Standard Chartered Bank SCO No.137-138, Sector 9-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh 160017 through its branch Manager/authorized signatory.

.  … Opposite Parties

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

                       

ARGUED BY		Sh. Satyajeet Singh, Advocate for complainants.
		Sh. Arjun Kundra, Advocate for OPs.

Per SURJEET KAUR, Member

     Briefly stated the initially the complainants No.1&2 availed personal loan of Rs.3,85,00,000/- from ICICI bank, Sector 9, Panchkula. Since the rate of ICICI bank on personal loan was higher and the interest rate of the OPs standard Chartered bank were comparatively less and as such the complainants No.1&2 applied  for personal loan of Rs.3,82,00,000/-  out of which Rs.3,50,38,406/- top be paid to ICICI bank for swapping the said loan to the OPs.  The OPs vide sanction letter dated 29.8.2018 sanctioned the personal loan of Rs.3,82,00,000/- in favour of the complainants and Jai Shree Ganesh  Farms for a period of 15 years @9.20% per annum with an EMI of Rs.3,92,008/- per month.  The OPs also charged processing charges from the complainants and kept the title deeds of House No.1, Sector 12, Panchkula as security of their loan amount.  As per clause No.2 of the loan sanction letter dated 29.8.2018 the OPs agreed not to charge pre-payment fees on floating rate loans to individuals as of the loan case of the complainants.  Since the poultry business of the complainants was going through a very bad phase and they were in financial crunches so the in the year 2019 the complainants decided to pay off the loan amount and wrote an email dated 22.8.2019 to the OPs  requesting them for pre-payment  of the loan amount if the complainants are not charged but the OPs demanded hefty foreclosure charges. The complainant  No.1 filed a complaint with Reserve Bank of India  and accordingly the   Banking Ombudsman vide order dated 25.10.2019 asked the OPs to accept  the payment in part and when the account becomes zero no foreclosure charges may levied.  The complainants between 25.10.2019 to 17.3.2020 made five partial payments but the OPs levied foreclosure charges. The complainant filed a contempt before the banking OMBUDSMAN which asked the Ops to refund the foreclosure charges but to no avail despite repeated requests made and legal notice sent by the complainants. Alleging the aforesaid act of Opposite Parties deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part, this complaint has been filed

2. The Opposite Parties in their reply while admitting the factual matrix of the case stated that primary borrower of the loan in question was Tanuj Roshi Poultry farm and Shashi Kala Gupta, Jai Shree Ganesh Farms, Satinder Kumar Gupta and Tarun Gupta were Co-borrower. On the basis of application form duly signed by the complainants and upon receipt of requisite documents, the OP bank sanctioned a loan in favour of the complainants on 19.2018 for an amount of Rs.3,82,00,000/-  repayable in 180 EMIs of Rs.3,92,008/- at an interest rate of 9.20% MCLR variable for 6 months. It is averred that since one of the borrower and co-borrower  were non-individual and the loan was for business purpose, pre-payment  charges were applicable. However, no pre-payment charges were applicable after 30 months. Thus the  foreclosure charges were levied as per terms and conditions  of loan  and the same was not in contravention of Reserve Bank of India’s circular.  All other allegations made in the complaint has been  denied being wrong.
3. OP No.1 did not turn up despite due service, hence vide order dated 27.07.2022 it was proceeded against exparte
4. No rejoinder filed on behalf of the complainant.
5. Contesting parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and gone through the record of the case.
7. The sole grouse of the complainants through the present complaint is that  the OPs have illegally and arbitrarily levied foreclosure/pre-payment charges on the loan amount prepaid by them despite the fact that the same was a personal loan.
8. The stand taken  by the OPs is that  the loan in question was not a personal loan but a commercial one. Hence, the complaints do not fall within the ambit of consumer. Therefore, the present complaint deserves dismissal.
9. After going through the documents on record it is abundantly clear from Annexure C-2 the facility letter  issued by the OPs’ bank that the purpose of loan is for balance transfer and business expansion. Meaning thereby the complainants had availed the loan for the expansion of their business. Thus, it is out of our mind that how the complainants are claiming that the loan was an individual loan.
10. A perusal of Annexure OP 9 placed on record by the Ops  the guidelines of Reserve Bank of India issued on 2.8.2019 clearly clarify that no foreclosure charges/pre-payment charges on any floating rate term loan sanctioned, for purposes other than business to individual borrowers with or without co-obligant(s) shall be charged by the Bank. But in the present case we are dealing with the loan purpose of which is mentioned as business expansion.  
11. From the reading of the guidelines of RBI aforesaid, it is clear that the benefit of waiver of pre-payment charges is not available where the borrowers are not individuals e.g. in case of firm etc. As discussed above it is proved on record that the complainants have availed the loan for the purpose of expansion of their business and as such they cannot be considered as individual borrower.  Hence, the OPs have rightly levied foreclosure charges as per rules and regulations and there is no  deficiency on the part of the OPs.  Thus the complaint is meritless
12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
13.  Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.
14.      Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

			sD/- [Pawanjit Singh]
			President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member
13/9/2023
mp