Court allowed amendment of a complaint regarding prepayment charges and directed reconsideration of the complaint by the Ombudsman.

JUDGMENT

(Dated this the 28^th day of January, 2026)

The petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in the manufacture of rubber latex and other rubber products and is registered as a Medium Enterprises under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act , 2006. The petitioner availed a cash credit and term loan facilities from the 3^rd respondent Bank in the year 2023, with an overall credit limit of 14.23 Crores, which were sanctioned as per the sanction letter dated 28.07.2023. Clause 14 of the Sanction letter deals with prepayment charges, stipulating that prepayment within 12 months attracts 4% plus applicable taxes, between 12 and 24 months attracts 3% plus applicable taxes, and beyond 24 months attracts 2%.

2. Being dissatisfied with the services of the Bank, the petitioner decided to close the loan account and shift to another Bank, and accordingly requested closure in terms of the sanction conditions. However, the petitioner found that an amount of Rs.16,20,020/- was debited from its account on 07.10.2024 towards pre-closure charges, calculated at 4% in terms of Clause 14(B) of Ext.P2. The petitioner, on coming to know of this, submitted a representation as Ext.P5 to reverse the repayment charges and to bring the account in conformity with the terms and conditions. The said request was rejected by the Bank through Ext.P6.

3. Aggrieved by the action of the 3^rd respondent, the petitioner approached the 4^th respondent Ombudsman by filing a complaint, which is now closed as per Ext.P8 for the reason that a complete waiver of the charges cannot be made.

4. The contention raised by the petitioner that they were entitled to pay only 3% repayment charges, since the loan was closed after 12 months, was not considered by the Ombudsman.

5. The learned counsel for the 4^th respondent submitted that the respondent is not entitled to complete waiver of any prepayment charges and that the appropriation of the amount of Rs.16,20,020/- is legal and proper. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner did not have a case that the prepayment charges should never be 4% and only 3%. Only in this writ petition has the petitioner raised such a claim. So, the Ombudsman cannot be found fault on, as such a contention was never raised before the Ombudsman.

6. It is a fact that the petitioner nor the respondent has not made available the complaint made by the petitioner before the Ombudsman. Therefore, it is not discernible as to what grounds were raised in the complaint. The learned counsel for the petitioner has limited her argument to the fact that she is aggrieved by the appropriation of the amount of Rs.16,20,020/- as prepayment charges, since the loan had crossed one year and, therefore, going by Ext.P2 sanction letter, specifically clause 14, if the prepayment is between 12 and 24 months, the amount applicable is only 3% plus applicable tax. A reading of Ext.P8 does not show that the petitioner has raised such a contention. However, since the petitioner has a grievance regarding the percentage of prepayment charges, the petitioner is granted liberty to amend the complaint, if necessary, to raise the plea regarding the percentage of prepayment. If such an amendment is carried out, the Ombudsman shall consider the said aspect also and pass appropriate orders.

7. It is made clear that I have not gone into the merits of the case, and it will be open to the petitioner to raise all contentions before the Ombudsman, if so advised.

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed, Ext.P8 is set aside, and the Ombudsman is directed to reconsider the complaint within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Sd/-