STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH (PRINCIPAL BENCH)

Complaint No. : 2 of 2025 Date of Institution : 09.01.2025 Date of Decision : 10.09.2025 M/s Royal Import & Export, E-23, Industrial Area Phase-VII, Mohali Punjab, 160059 through its Partner Sh. Parveen Kapoor.

...Complainant Versus

1. Sh. Sumant Kathpalia, Managing Director of Indusind Bank, Indusind Bank Limited, 8thFloor, Tower 1, One Indiabulls Centre, 841, S.B. Marg, Elphinstone Road(W), Mumbai.

2. Indusind Bank Limited, 8thFloor, Tower 1, One Indiabulls Centre, 841, S.B.

Marg, Elphinstone Road(W), Mumbai through its Managing Director-Sh.

Sumant Kathpalia.

3. Indusind Bank Limited, SCO 53-54, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh, through its Regional Head – Sh. Harminder Sidhu.

4. Indusind Bank Limited, SCO 53-54, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh, through its Zonal Head – Sh. DhruvBist.

5. Indusind Bank Limited, SCO 53-54, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh, through its Zonal Head – Sh Sandeep Bhardwaj.

6. Indusind Bank Limited, SCO 53-54, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh, through its Zonal Head – Ms Archana Nijhawan.

7. State Bank of India, TFCPC, Sector 68, Mohali, 160062, through its Assistant General Manager.

...Opposite parties BEFORE: JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER Argued by:-Sh. Devinder Kumar, Advocate for the complainant Sh. Arun Dogra, Advocate for opposite parties No.1 to 6 Sh. Abhineet Taneja, Advocate for opposite party No.7 PER RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER Brief facts:-

The complainant Sh. Parveen Kapoor along with other Partners of M/s Royal Import & Export, E-23, Industrial Area Phase-7, Mohali Punjab, 160059 are running said manufacturing unit for the last 14 years to earn their livelihood by self-employment. The complainant firm is dealing with banking institution from the last 10 years are fulfilling their requirement and are also complying the statutory provisions of the banking institution. In the year 2014, the complainant availed loan of ₹6,00,000/- from the Opposite Party No.7 i.e. State Bank of Patiala and paid monthly installments to Opposite Party No.7. During this period, the complainant complied with all the requirements of OP No. 7 and there was no default on its part. In 2014 itself, the complainant started the export business and opened account No.65210266458 with the State Bank of Patiala. As per banking rules, Bank was well aware that in case of any money received from the other country, the bank is bound to provide/furnish the information through e-FIRC (Foreign Inward Remittance Certificate) on EDPMS (Export Data Processing and Monitoring System) and the complainant has no control with regard to the above stated information provided by the bank. Thereafter the facility/loan provided by the State Bank of Patiala was taken over by Bank of Maharashtra. On 01.04.2017, State Bank of Patiala merged into State Bank of India. As per the knowledge of the complainant, all the customers and other records of State Bank of Patiala had been handed over to State Bank of India.

2] In the month of September 2020, the complainant approached opposite parties No.1 to 6 for the purpose of availing the total Working Capital Limit of ₹598.55 lakhs. Under the direction of the opposite parties, the complainant submitted the required documents as demanded for the purpose of the Working Capital Limit. After scrutiny of the documents and after completion of all the formalities, compliance of terms and conditions, as required for the disbursement of Limit, opposite parties provided limit of ₹598.55 lakhs to the complainant’s firm vide Sanction Letter dated 18.09.2020, Annexure C-3. From the date of providing the limit, the complainant was continuously complying with the terms and conditions of the bank and there is not even a single default on its part. The opposite party without any intimation to the complainant debited a sum of ₹10,26,600/- from the account of the complainant on account of deferral penal charges 17 times on different dates starting from 28.09.2021