Back
PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
S.N. Aggarwal, President and Jasbir Kapoor, Member
STATE BANK OF INDIA - Appellant
Versus
MITHAN LAL KALRA RICE AND GENERAL MILLS - Respondent
Appeal No. 434 of 2004
Decided on : 22-02-2008
Mr. A.K. Khunger, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Sanjeev Manrai, Advocate, for the Respondent
The court held that the appellants' acceptance of the settlement amount without raising objections regarding interest on delayed payments amounted to a waiver of the delay.
Headnote:
Interest - Cash Credit Limit - Settlement Agreement - Consumer Dispute - [FACT OF THE CASE] The respondents availed a cash credit limit from the appellants and reached a settlement agreement to pay Rs. 60 lacs in full and final settlement. The respondents failed to make the payment by the stipulated date, and the appellants transferred an amount from a new account to the settled account, leading to a consumer dispute. [FINDING OF THE COURT] The court found that the appellants' action in appropriating the amount towards alleged interest was arbitrary and concocted, and dismissed the appeals with costs. [ISSUES] The main issue was whether the appellants were entitled to interest for the delayed payment. [RATIO DECIDENDI] The court held that the appellants' acceptance of the settlement amount without raising objections regarding interest on delayed payments amounted to a waiver of the delay. The court also noted the lack of evidence regarding any agreement for interest payment. [FINAL DECISION] The appeals were dismissed with costs, and the appellants were directed to remit certain amounts to the respondents.
ORDER
S.N. Aggarwal, President - This order will dispose of Appeal No. 434 of 2004 (State Bank of India v. Mithan Lal Kalra Rice and General Mills) and Appeal No. 435 of 2004 (State Bank of India v. Evershine Solvex Pvt. Ltd.) as questions oflaw and facts involved in both the appeals are the same. For the sake of convenience, facts are taken from Appeal No. 434 of 2004 and the parties would be referred by their status in this appeal.
2. The respondents availed the cash credit limit from the appellants to the tune of Rs. 70 lacs and opened account No. 01559/075040. An amount of Rs. 55,53,839 was outstanding against the respondents against this account. The talks of settlement took between the parties and the respondents agreed to make the payment of Rs. 60 lacs in full and final settlement of the claim of the appellants under this account. The respondents had made the offer vide their letter dated 15.2.2001 which was accepted by the appellants in their meeting held on 3.3.2001. This amount of Rs. 60 lacs was to be deposited by the respondent with the appellants within one month from the date of approval of the offer on 3.3.2001 i.e. upto 4.4.2001.
3. The respondents could not deposit the amount by the stipulated date and the appellants vide their letter dated 2.6.2001 informed the respondents that the compromise offer stood cancelled. However, the respondents vide their letter dated 12.7.2001 informed the appellants that the delay was caused as the property of the respondents could not be sold and undertook to make the payment after 19.7.2001. However, by the subsequent letters dated 18.7.2001 and 22.7.2001 respondents again prayed for time to deposit the settled amount and the entire amount of Rs. 60 lacs was paid upto 15.2.2001. The account was closed for which the appellants issued the statement of account.
4. The respondents opened a fresh current with the appellants bearing account No. 01050/075132 and they started operating it. The appellants had also opened this account in their bank accepting the preposition that the cash credit limit account of the respondents was fully settled and closed. An amount of Rs. 2,03,561 was lying deposited in current account bearing account No. 01050/075132. However, the appellants transferred this amount in the earlier cash credit limit account allegedly towards the interest outstanding against the respondents in the said account whereas no amount of interest was outstanding against the respondents in the cash credit limit account which was finally settled and closed. Therefore, the respondents filed the complaint in the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Muktsar (in short "District Forum ) challenging the action of the appellants for transferring this amount from one account to the other account without the permission and consent of the respondents.
5. The appellants filed the written statement. Preliminary objections were pleaded and the case was also contested on merits. It was admitted that the amount outstanding against the respondents in the cash credit limit account was settled under the one time settlement scheme but the respondents had failed to abide by commitment/schedule of payment as stipulated under the relief agreement. Since the compromise deed was defaulted by the respondents and the deal was rescinded, the conditions settled in the subsequent compromise had been kept concealed by the respondents. The respondents were to pay the interest for the defaulting period and the respondents themselves had made the payment of Rs. 2,03,561 towards the interest for the delayed period. Hence dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
6. The respondents placed on file the affidavit of Ravi Kalra @ Ravinder Kumar as Ex. C-A and also proved documents Ex. C-1 to Ex. C-12. On the other hand, the appellants produced on file the affidavit of Mr. A.K. Bhatia, Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Muktsar Branch as Ex. O.P. 1 and also proved documents as Exs. O.P. 2 and O.P. 3.
7. On the b
