The respondent4 was maintaining an account with the appellant Bank at its branch in Agra.
On 6th August, 2013, the Consumer filed an application under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 7.
Regular LC Limit of Rs.
4 crore for import of raw material from time to time.
The Consumer sought a refund of the said amount on the ground of suffering losses, owing to the alleged delay of the Bank in sanctioning the credit facilities and that the Consumer had got the credit facilities from other banks.
The officers of the Bank visited the site but on 6 th December, 2011, the Consumer revised its credit requirement as under Enhancement of Working Capital Limit from Rs.
10 crore to Rs.
But, on 9 th February, 2012, the Consumer objected to the deduction of processing fees as the Bank companyld only do so after the loan was sanctioned.
20 crore Sanction of ECB SCL INR term loan of Rs.
Such revised request is as under Term Loan in form of ECB for Rs.
On 24th January, 2012, the final proposal for sanction was submitted by the CPU at New Delhi to the Head Office at Mumbai which had the requisite authority to approve the sanction of such high value loans.
The appeal before the NCDRC against such order remained unsuccessful.
Such request was reiterated vide e mail dated 22 nd February, 2012.
40 crore Sanction of LC Limit of Rs.
When the officers of the Bank approached the Consumer with the sanction letter for the credit facilities requested, the Consumer showed the sanction letters issued by other Banks i.e. HDFC Bank and ICICI Bank.
The Consumer sought the following credit facilities Enhancement of Working Capital Limit from Rs.
Such request was also forwarded to CPU immediately.
10 1 for short, NCDRC 2 for short, Bank 3 for short, SCDRC 4 for short, Consumer crore to Rs.
40 crore in the form of ECB Sanction of LC Limit of Rs.
However, on 17 th March, 2012, the credit facilities were sanctioned within three months from the final modified request.
25 crore for deferred payment credit for 3 years on withdrawn basis LC Limit of Rs.
19 Crore Against Deferred payment credit of machine purchasing from SACMI for the Period of Three 3 years on drawn down Basis.
25 crore.
On 30th December, 2011, the Bank debited the account of the Consumer by an amount of Rs.27,41,165/ being 50 of the applicable processing fees including the TEV study and service tax charges.
20 crore Sanction of Term loan of Rs.
5 for short, CPU 6 for short, TEV LC Limit of Rs.
As per the Bank, the application submitted by the Consumer was handed over to Credit Processing Unit 5 at New Delhi on 4th November, 2011 pending submission of the valuation search report of the properties to be mortgaged and Techno Economic Viability 6 study.
However, soon thereafter, on 17th December, 2011, the Consumer again revised its credit requirement reducing the LC limit to Rs.19 crores from Rs.25 crores.
10 Crore to 20 Crore.
40 Crore.
The Consumer applied for a loan on 15 th October, 2011.
Working capital limit enhancement from Rs.
4 Crore for time to time import of Machinery Raw Etc.
This application which was allowed by the SCDRC on 13 th July, 2016 directing the Bank to pay a sum of Rs.27,41,165/ along with interest 9 from the date of filing the companyplaint till the date of payment.
HEMANT GUPTA, J. The challenge in the present appeal is to an order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission 1 on 10th May, 2018 whereby an appeal filed by the appellant 2 against the order of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission 3 dated 13th July, 2016 remained unsuccessful.
