Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/337/2023

HDFC BANK LTD - Complainant(s)

Versus

BALWINDER SINGH GILL - Opp.Party(s)

VAIBHAV SINGH TARA

18 Apr 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T. CHANDIGARH

[Additional Bench]

 

[1]

Appeal No.	:	A/337/2023
Date  of  Institution	:	24/12/2023
Date   of   Decision	:	18/04/2024

 

 

 

 

 

HDFC Bank Limited, SCO 153-155, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh, through its Authorized Representative-Smt. Disha Sehgal.

….Appellant

Versus

 

Balwinder Singh Gill son of Sh.Bijla Singh, Resident of House No.47, Sector 10, Chandigarh.  

…. Respondent

 

BEFORE: MRS. PADMA PANDEY   PRESIDING MEMBER

                PREETINDER SINGH      MEMBER

 

PRESENT	:	Sh. Vaibhav Singh Tara, Advocate for the Appellant.
		Sh. Shailendra Sharma, Advocate for the Respondent.

 

[2]

Appeal No.	:	A/331/2023
Date  of  Institution	:	05/12/2023
Date   of   Decision	:	18/04/2024

 

 

 

 

 

Balwinder Singh Gill son of Sh.Bijla Singh, Resident of House No.47, Sector 10, Chandigarh. 

….Appellant

Versus

 

M/s HDFC Bank Limited, SCO 153-155, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh, through its Authorized Representative-Nandan Singh Rawat/ Aditya Kochar/ Sanjeev Chugh/ Sachin Kapoor.

 

…. Respondent

 

BEFORE: MRS. PADMA PANDEY   PRESIDING MEMBER

                PREETINDER SINGH      MEMBER

 

PRESENT	:	Sh. Shailendra Sharma, Advocate for the Appellant.
		Sh. Vaibhav Singh Tara, Advocate for the Respondent.

 

PER PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

1.         This order shall dispose of above captioned cases i.e. A/337/2023 filed by the Appellant/OP (HDFC Bank Ltd. Vs. Balwinder Singh Gill) and A/331/2023 filed by the Complainant (Balwinder Singh Gill Vs. M/s HDFC Bank Ltd.), against the order dated 02.11.2023, rendered by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T., Chandigarh (for brevity hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Ld. District Commission’), vide which it partly allowed the Consumer Complaint bearing No. CC/489/2021, filed by the Complainant (Balwinder Singh Gill), against Opposite Party (HDFC Bank Ltd.), by passing the following order: -

“9]     In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed. OP is directed as under:-

i)        to pay an amount of ₹10,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him.

ii)       to pay ₹7000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

10]    This order be complied with by the OP within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, it shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(ii) above.”

2.          Since, the issues involved in the above-said cases, except minor variations, here and there, of law and facts are the same, as such, we are of the considered opinion that the same can be adjudicated by passing a consolidated order.

 

3.         For the convenience, the parties are being referred to, in the present cases, as position held in Consumer Complaint before the Ld. District Commission.

 

4.         Before the Ld. District Commission, it was the case of the Complainant that he approached the OP Bank in the year 2003 and applied for a housing loan of ₹2,00,000/- which was sanctioned and disbursed to him in terms of loan agreement dated 06.06.2003. The complainant kept on paying the EMIs regularly without any default and the loan came to an end on 31.07.2018. Despite the fact that the complainant had repaid the entire loan amount by the end of July 2018, the OP kept on deducting the monthly installments from his saving bank account and finally, deducting ₹69,783/- from his bank account. It was alleged that as per loan agreement the last EMI was due on 31.07.2018 whereas the OP kept on taking EMI even thereafter till May 2019, the complainant noticed that the OP has taken ₹1,05,187/- as excess payment from him. The complainant approached the OP Bank and confronted about the overcharging, but the OP could not give any convincing reply. Thereafter, even the complainant sent a legal notice to the OP Bank, but to no avail. Hence, the aforesaid Consumer Complaint was filed before the Ld. District Commission, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party.

 

5.         The Opposite Party contested the claim of the Complainant by filing reply inter alia, pleading that the complainant availed the floating rate of interest and therefore, the rate of interest increased with increase in retail prime lending rate and also decreased with decrease in detailed prime lending rate. The number of equated monthly installments changed due to change in rate of interest. It was stated that at the time when the complainant availed housing loan, the retail prime lending rate was 10% p.a. and he was given benefit of negative spread/discount of 1.25% p.a. and was thus charged 8.75% p.a. The negative spread of 1.25% was fixed and agreed to by the parties herein. Denying all other allegations and pleading no deficiency in service, the Opposite Party prayed for dismissal of the Complaint.

 

6.         On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence adduced on the record, Ld. District Commission partly allowed the Complaint and issued directions to the Opposite Party – Bank as noticed in the opening para of this order.  

 

7.         Aggrieved against the aforesaid order passed by the Ld. District Commission, Appeal No. 337 of 2023 has been filed by the Appellant/OP (HDFC Bank Limited Vs. Balwinder Singh Gill) and Appeal No. 331 of 2023 has been filed by the Complainant (Balwinder Singh Gill Vs. M/s HDFC Bank Limited).

 

8.         We have heard Learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the evidence and record of the case with utmost care and circumspection.

 

9.         The core question that falls for consideration before us is as to whether the Ld. District Commission has rightly passed the impugned order by appreciating the entire material placed before it. 

 

10.         Having bestowed our anxious consideration to the matter, we are of the opinion that in the light of the material on record, answer to the question posed has to be in negative.

 

11.         It is the case of the Appellant that the Ld. District Commission while passing the impugned order has failed to appreciate that the Respondent/Complainant was always fully aware of the terms and conditions governing the loan account and was aware of the varying rate of interest qua his loan account as earlier on two occasions he approached the Appellant Bank for reducing the same. The Respondent/Complainant thus cannot negate or contradict the said fact after having used the same for availing benefit or reduced rate of interest/ conversion. It has been further submitted that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Appellant – Bank and thus, the impugned order being contrary to the material available on record deserves to be set-aside.

 

12.         Conversely, it has been contended on behalf of the Respondent/ Complainant that the order passed by the Ld. District Commission deserves to be modified as he has been granted meager compensation.

 

13.         Record shows, the Ld. District Commission partly allowed the complaint primarily on the ground that the OP-Bank was duty bound to intimate to the complainant about the rate of interest to be charged/ varied on every occasion of charge, which has not been done by it, hence, the OP-Bank was deficient in providing service to the complainant. 

 

14.         Learned counsel for the Appellant Bank submits that the loan agreement executed between the bank and the complainant provided for floating rate of interest. The bank increased or decreased the rate on the basis of its uniform policy in this regard in the normal wont of its functioning and the same was applicable on all similarly placed borrowers including the complainant on the basis of similar loan agreements. Prior consent of the complainant or of any other similarly placed borrower was not required. To buttress his arguments further, he submitted that in so far as informing the borrowers including the complainant is concerned, the bank placed its relevant notifications in the public domain on its website and also sent reset letters to the borrowers including the complainant from time to time whenever it increased or decreased the rate of interest. The bank was within its rights to change the rate of interest and the consequent number of monthly installments. He further submits that the observations of the Ld. District Commission is patently bad both on facts and in law and is totally uncalled for and ought to be explicitly washed out.
15.         Learned counsel for the complainant fairly accepts that the increase in the rate of interest was on the basis of the loan agreement executed between the bank and the complainant wherein floating rate of interest was agreed to. He however submits that the essential grievance of the complainant is that the bank did not inform the complainant about the increase in the rate of interest and in the number of monthly installments. Had the bank intimated him about the same he would have taken timely remedial measures. He also expressly submits that the complainant never received any letter/intimation from the bank.

 

16.         In so far as taking consent of the complainant is concerned, we are of the considered view that the bank was well within its rights to increase or decrease the rate of interest under the floating rate of interest provided for in the loan agreement executed between the bank and the complainant and any additional or further consent from the complainant was not required, the same having already been agreed to in the loan agreement itself. There is nothing on record to show that either the bank had fixed the rates of interest in any erroneous way contrary to the principles and the guidelines applicable or had differentiated between similarly situate borrowers in this respect.
17.         In so far as the aspect of informing the complainant is concerned, the learned counsel for the bank has pointed out during his arguments that the relevant notifications were put in the public domain on the bank’s website and has also pointed out that the relevant intimation/letters were sent to the complainant from time to time. Learned counsel for the complainant does not dispute the fact of the notifications being placed on the bank’s website but he submits that the intimation letters were never received by the complainant.

 

18.         As per a fundamental principle contained in section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, the court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case; illustration (e) specifically says that the court may presume that judicial and official acts have been regularly performed.

 

19.         In the instant case there is nothing on record to bring out enough reason to presume otherwise. On the other hand learned counsel for the bank has meticulously pointed out about the factum of placing the relevant notifications on the bank’s website and sending the reset letters to the complainant. Even otherwise, monthly installments were being deducted from the complainant’s bank account towards repayment of his home loan and he was servicing his loan on a regular continuing basis. A reasonable man of ordinary prudence in the normal course would be aware of his repayment schedule(s), when the deductions were being made from his own bank account. As such the arguments regarding not informing the complainant do not reflect much merit in the present facts and context. To cap it all, a Bank is not required to inform the borrowers about the increase or decrease in interest rates when the borrowers have taken loans on floating rate of interest. The impugned order passed by the Ld. District Commission is therefore based on wrong appreciation of evidence and law on the point and thus suffers from illegality or perversity. 

 

20.         Sequel to the discussion above, findings of ‘deficiency’ or ‘unfair trade practice’ on the part of the bank cannot sustain.

 

21.         No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the Appellant.

 

22.         This Commission, therefore, is of the opinion that the impugned order passed by the Ld. District Commission partly allowing the Complaint was highly erroneous and liable to be set aside. The present appeal is, therefore, allowed and the impugned order passed by the Ld. District Commission is set aside. Consequently, the Consumer Complaint is dismissed.

 

23.         In the wake of the position, as sketched out above, the Appeal No.331 of 2023 titled as “Balwinder Singh Gill Vs. M/s HDFC Bank Ltd.”, being bereft of merit is accordingly dismissed, with no order as to costs.

 

24.         The pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.

 

25.         Certified copy of this order be placed on the records of A/331/2023 – Balwinder Singh Gill Vs. M/s HDFC Bank Limited.

 

26.         Certified Copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.  

 

27.         The files be consigned to the Record Room, after due completion.

Pronounced

18^th April, 2024                                                                 

                                         Sd/-                         

                                                                (PADMA PANDEY)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(PREETINDER SINGH)

MEMBER

“Dutt”