Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 665.
Instituted on : 22.11.2017.
Decided on : 16.10.2018.
Bhanu Parkash Chugh age-54 years, s/o Sh. Devi Dayal, R/o H.No.1375, Sector-1, Rohtak, Mobile No.9996518650.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Bank of Baroda, Civil Road Rohtak through Chief Manager.
- Bank of Baroda Through DGM & DIO, Namaste Chowk, Opp. Deventure Hotel, Karnal.
- Bank of Baroda, Head Office, Mandvi, Mumbai through Chairman and M.D.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
SMT. SAROJ BALA BOHRA, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.S.K.Manchanda, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.V.S.Singhal, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that complainant has applied for allotment of plot, as per advertisement given by bank of Baroda, Rohtak on 19.08.2016 and paid interest Rs.14594/-. That complainant gave 3 months interest to the bank and Bank financed the application money and charged interest from the applicants. The applicants deposited 3 months interest as per advertisement of the Bank i.e. Rs.14594/- each (alongwith Rs.1200/- as upfront fee and cost of application form without any receipt). That it was implied that if draw takes after 3 months, extra interest will be charged and in case draw takes place earlier the proportionate interest will be refunded to the applicants. That as the draw was concluded in two months whereas the interest was charged by the Bank for 3 months. That complainant approached the OPs for refund of interest amount but the Chief Manager flatly refused to refund the one month interest. Hence this complaint and the complainant has prayed for directing the OPs to refund one month interest amounting to Rs.5706/- alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses as explained in relief clause.
2. On notice, the opposite party appeared and filed its written reply submitting therein that it has never been agreed by the respondents that in case draw takes place earlier, the interest will be refunded to the complainant. Therefore, the respondents are not liable to refund any interest amount and the complainant is not entitled to any relief. That all the allegations leveled by the complainant being false are specifically denied in toto and complainant has no cause of action to file the complaint. It is prayed that the complaint may kindly be dismissed with costs.
3. Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.
4. Ld. Counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8 and has closed his evidence. On the other hand opposite party in its evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 and has closed his evidence.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. As per respondents, they have submitted that as per agreement clause No.10: “Upfront charges recovered will not be refunded. If the draw of Plot exceeds 3 month period from the date of loan. The interest for the period exceeding three months will be paid by the applicant. Further in case of delay is draw/refund by GAMADA beyond 3 months from the date of closure of scheme, I/We shall pay interest as per norms/demand of the bank. Also I/We undertake to liquidate the loan a/c, if found successful in draw, with interest @ 9.5%(fixed) from date of expiry of 3 months from the date of closure of scheme till liquidation of the loan within 1 months. Thereafter, I/We shall pay interest at commercial rate. However account shall be closed immediately”.
7. The complainant stated that they have paid an amount of Rs.14594/- on account of interest for 3 months and Rs.1200/- as upfront fee and cost of application form. The perusal of receipt itself shows that an amount of Rs.14594/- has been deposited by the complainant and as per the complainant he has paid an amount of Rs.1200/- in cash on account of upfront fee/charges. This fact has not been specifically denied by the respondent in his written statement whereas it has been submitted that: “Para no.4 of the complaint is matter of record and admitted accordingly but rest of the para as alleged is wrong and hence denied”. After perusal of the written statement we came to the conclusion that an amount of Rs.1200/- has been deposited by the complainant on account of upfront fee/charges. As per the respondent the complainant is not legally entitled for the one month interest and they considered this amount as upfront charges. Now firstly we should consider what is upfront fee/charges.
8. The complainant counsel argued and described the definition of processing fee/upfront charges. That upfront fee is a one-time fee collected during initial stage of term loan. No further processing fee is required for the entire period of loan. A processing fee is collected from cash credit on average renewal which is normally one year interval. Ld. counsel also placed reliance upon the law of Hon’ble Chandigarh State Commission, U.T. Chandigarh in 2017(2)CLT 388 titled as Vineet Arora Vs. Emarr MGF Land Limited & others.
9. Now in the present case an amount of Rs.14594/- was deposited and this amount was for 3 months interest. The respondent officials have not placed on record any bifurcation of amount of Rs.14594/-. It means that this amount is only and only interest and in this amount upfront fee has not been added. The respondent officials separately received the amount of Rs.1200/- on account of upfront charges.
10. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we come to the conclusion that complainant is entitled for the interest amount of Rs.5706/-. As such complaint is allowed and we hereby direct the opposite parties to pay the amount of Rs.5706/-(Rupees five thousand seven hundred six only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 22.11.2017 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.
11. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.
12. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
16.10.2018. ................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Ved Pal Hooda, Member.
…………………………..
Saroj Bala Bohra, Member.
