STANDARD CHARTERED BANK Vs. RENU SOOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE opposite party in O. P. No. 425/2000 on the file of the District Forum, Chennai (North) is the appellant.

(2.) THE case of the complainant was as follows : During February, 2000 the opposite party canvassed with the complainant and lured her into taking loan against shares. She pledged shares of VSNL, MRF, Corporation Bank, Grasim, I. T. C. , Reliance Industries, S. B. I. , TISCO and Integrated Enterprises Limited. An overdraft limit of Rs. 10,00,000 with a drawing limit of Rs. 2,80,000 was given to her on 12. 2. 2000. The drawing limit was revised from time-to-time. On 4. 12. 2000 the drawing limit was enhanced to Rs. 6,79,000 and on 24. 2. 2000 it was enhanced to Rs. 8,79,000. A sum of Rs. 7,900 was debited to her account by way of documentation charges and front end fee. All revisions of drawing limit were communicated in writing to the complainant. On 13. 3. 2000 the opposite party issued a notice to the effect that the complainant's drawing limit was Rs. 8,08,500, that she had exceeded the drawing limit by 69,400 and, therefore, the limit was cancelled and she should remit the entire dues within 7 days with accrued interest and in default, shares would be sold. The complainant had always taken proper care to operate her account within the drawing power fixed by the opposite party. She had never drawn any money in excess. She never received any intimation regarding the reduction of the drawing limit from Rs. 8,79,000 to Rs. 8,08,500. The complaint of irregularity and cancellation of limit was untenable. The threat of sale of shares was even more galling. By a Fax letter dated 15. 3. 2000 the complainant informed the opposite party that she had not received any intimation about the reduction of the drawing limit, that she had not committed any irregularity, that her limit had been cancelled within four weeks without assigning any reasons; that she would clear the loan upon receiving the statement and that the bank should not reimburse the front end fee and charges and should not charge any interest. After she had despatched that, she had received an excess drawing letter dated 11. 3. 2005 on 18. 3. 2000. The letter was sent in a cover of Cameo Corporate Services Limited and bore the postal mark on 18. 3. 2000. On 20. 3. 2000 the complainant sold her machinery and equipment for a sum of Rs. 6 lakh. By letter dated 21. 3. 2000 she informed the opposite party that her cheques for Rs. 8,70,000 were ready and would be handed over upon receiving confirmation that she would pay service charges and interest. The opposite party by letter dated 21. 3. 2000 admitted that the letter dated 11. 3. 2000 had not been received by the complainant and that Ex. A4 was the first letter received by the complainant. On 25. 4. 2000 the complainant paid a sum of Rs. 6,70,000 and asked for no-due certificate and requested for cancellation of the pledge. The pledge was cancelled only on 19. 6. 2000. She gave a lawyer's notice claiming damages in a sum of Rs. 5 lakh occasioned by loss in sale of machines, distress, mental agony and hardship.

(3.) THE opposite party filed a version admitting the grant of overdraft facility against the pledge of shares, denying luring the complainant and further stating that they had kept the complainant informed about the drawing power by way of letters and admitting that the opposite party had in fact sent a letter dated 13. 3. 2000 cancelling the limit and calling upon her for liquidation of the limit; pleading that the letter dated 11. 3. 2000 was a routine letter; that they had not committed any deficiency in service, sale of machines was the complainant's own making that the complainant had not suffered a loss and in any event, the opposite party was not liable for the loss.