Punjab and Sind Bank vs K.R. And Company

THE Revision Petitioner, Punjab and Sind Bank, has challenged the order of Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in F.A. No.495 of 2004. THE State Commission has rejected the claim of the Revision Petitioner/OP that the loan of Rs.4,50,000/- was sanctioned to the Complainant (Respondent) on 28.06.2000 and the amount was kept in a new account opened in this behalf by the Complainant. From the records of the case of the District Consumer file, the State Commission has held that the loan was not sanctioned on 30.06.2000 but subsequently, for which an account was opened on 06.12.2000. THErefore, charging of Rs.1,200/- for demand draft expenses, Rs.800/- as ad hoc charges and Rs.25,000/- as interest was held to be unjustified and ordered to be refunded to the Complainant. THE State Commission ordered these amounts to be refunded from the dates of their deposit with 7.5% interest. More importantly, the State Commission accepted the claim of the Complainant for refund of interest in relation to the subsidy amount of Rs.2,50,000/- received on behalf of the Complainant on 4.5.2002. THE FD in the name of the Complainant was made only on 5.4.2003, therefore, the State Commission also held that the Bank/OP was liable to pay interest on this amount at FD rate from 4.5.2002 to 5.4.2003.

WE have heard the counsel for the Revision Petitioner and perused the record of this case. The Revision Petitioner has sought to explain the question of interest on the subsidy amount of Rs.2,50,000/- as follows:- "The subsidy of Rs.2.50 lacs was sent by branch office, Juhu, Mumbai on 12.04.2002, which was received by Petitioner Bank on 04.05.2002 and FDR was made on the same date i.e. 04.05.2002. However, the learned State Commission has wrongly taken date of preparation of FDR on 05.04.2003."

This explanation has an inherent flaw in it. We have seen on record a copy of the relevant FD receipt No.57372/02, which is dated 4.5.2002 and creates a fix deposit of Rs.2,50,000/- in the name of the Complainant. What the Revision Petitioner has chosen not to explain is that until its cancellation on 4.1.2003, this FD has earned the beneficiary i.e. the Complainant interest @ 8.25%, only. As this subsidy amount was not applied towards reduction of the loan, the bank continue to charge the Complainant interest @ 14.25% on this amount of Rs.2,50,000/- for this duration. Thus, in effect the bank has earned an additional 6% interest on this amount from the Complainant. This explains why the State Commission has directed the Revision Petitioner/Punjab and Sind Bank to pay interest at FD rate for the period of 4.5.2002 to 5.4.2003. We, agree with the State Commission and reject this contention of the Revision Petitioner.

Coming next to the question whether the effective date for sanction of the term loan of Rs.4,50,000/- was 28.6.2000 or 30.11.2000. We would like to refer to the observation of the State Commission that the RP/Bank has based its claim on a purported application of the Complainant dated 21.10.2000. The State Commission has clearly recorded that from their perusal of the application on the record of the District Forum it is found to be undated and without any signature. Counsel for the Revision petitioner was directed by the State Commission to produce the original copy of this letter, but had failed, despite sufficient opportunity being given. Therefore, the State Commission rightly rejected the claim of the Revision Petitioner that the loan of Rs.4,50,000/- had been sanctioned on 28.06.2000. As a matter of fact, the Revision Petitioner himself has produced before us a copy of the loan sanction letter of 30.11.2000 in which a term loan of Rs.4,50,000/- and a CC (HYP) of Rs.3,00,000/- have both been sanctioned. It was not the case of the Revision Petitioner before the fora below that the Complainant has taken two term loan of Rs.4,50,000/- each, one in June, 2000 and other in November,2000. There was only one term loan and it was sanctioned on 30.11.2000. The State Commission has therefore, very rightly rejected the claim that a term loan of Rs.4,50,000/- was sanctioned on 28.06.2000 by opening a fresh account.

IN conclusion, both the grounds raised by the Revision Petitioner fail and must be rejected. The revision petition is consequently dismissed and the order of the State Commission passed in F.A. No.495 of 2004 is confirmed. The Parties shall bear their own costs.