STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.

Date of institution : 17.12.2023 Reserved on : 13.11.2025 Date of Decision : 04.12.2025 State Bank of India through its Branch Manager, Branch Bassi Pathana, ITI Chowk, Bassi Pathana, District Fatehgarh Sahib, Punjab.

….Appellant/Opposite Party Versus M/s Tarsem Electrical through its Proprietor Tarsem Lal Garg, near Sanjeevani Hosptial main Road Bassi Pathana, District Fatehgarh Sahib.

….…Respondent/Complainant First Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the order dated 21.06.2023 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Fatehgarh Sahib in CC No.69 of 2020.

Quorum:-

Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary, President Ms. Simarjot Kaur, Member Mr. Vishav Kant Garg, Member

1) Whether Reporters of the Newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No

2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No

3) Whether judgment should be reported in the Digest?

Yes/No Present:-

For the appellant : Sh.Chandeep Singh, Advocate For the respondent : Sh.Gourav Goel, Advocate SIMARJOT KAUR, MEMBER :

The Appellant/Opposite Party has filed the present Appeal before this Commission to challenge the impugned order dated 21.06.2023 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Fatehgarh Sahib (in short, “the District Commission”), whereby the Complaint filed by the Complainant had been partly allowed

2. It would be apposite to mention here that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as were arrayed before the District Commission.

3. Briefly, the facts of the case as made out by the Complainant in the Complaint filed before the District Commission are that in the year 2002 the Complainant had started his business in the name and style of M/s Tarsem Electricals. He was impressed by the claims/projections made by the OP from its advertisements published in the Newspapers/Brochures to get a business loan. It was averred that the Complainant had obtained CC limit loan for an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the OP, vide loan Application dated 14.02.2002. The loan account No.00000055107690846 was issued to him on fulfilling all the terms and conditions and by mortgaging the two properties i.e. shops measuring 15X60 sq.ft. and 10X58 sq. ft. Said CC limit was increased by the OP Bank to the tune of Rs.36 lac till the date of filing of the Complaint. The OP had sanctioned the limit after being satisfied with the documents submitted by the Complainant i.e. balance sheet, ITR and Stock Statement. As per the Agreements dated 05.03.2002, 21.02.204, 20.02.2005, 25.03.2005, 28.02.2006, 14.01.2007, 26.09.2007, 20.09.2008, 22.07.2010, 10.12.2012, 11.01.2014, 09.06.2014 and 14.05.2018 executed between the Complainant and the OP Bank. The rate of interest of the business loan amount was to be levied @ 10% per annum. However, the OP Bank had charged an interest @ 11.25% per annum from the Complainant from 2004 till the date of filing of the Complaint. In addition to it, the officials of OP Bank had imposed penalty upon the Complainant. The Complainant had made calculations made by the Complainant for the period from 2005 to 2019 to show that there was difference in the rate of interest charged by the OP Bank. It was against the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India. OP-Bank had charged extra interest for a period of 14 years amounting to Rs.10 lac approximately. It was also averred that the Complainant was shocked to see the bank statement that the OP had continuously imposed the penalty on quarterly basis for a period of 3 years without any prior information.

4. It was also mentioned in the Complaint that the Complainant had approached the OP Bank and had requested not to impose penalties for a period of 3 years on quarterly basis without any reason. The official of the OP bank did not give satisfactory reply and had lingered the matter on one pretext or the other. Thereafter, the Complainant had submitted a representation dated 21.08.2019