FINAL ORDER/JUDGEMENT

SHRI REYAZUDDIN KHAN, MEMBER

This is an application U/S 35 of the C.P. Act, 2019.

The fact of the case in brief is that the complainant purchased a car being registration no.WB02AP6352 amount of Rs,12,00,000/- by a loan Agreement no.LACAL00040984411 dated 25.10.2019 from the OP against a monthly EMI of Rs,24,849/.The complainant stated that there is no whisper of prepayment charges in the documents attached. It is also revealed that the loan was issued on fixed rate of interest merely to circumvent the RBI circular dated 7^th May 2014 bearing No.DBOD.Dir.BC.No.110/12.03.00/2013-14 prohibiting banks from charging prepayment charges on all floating rate term loan to individual borrowers. It is mentioned that ICICI Bank car loans were floating rate from 4^th September,2007 earlier.The complainant further stated that while he got transferred to Mumbai on 27.Novemeber,2020,he enquired about the NOC for transfer of his vehicle of the above mentioned vehicle reg.no from the OP at their Minto Park Branch. OP unwilling to issue the NOC.The complainant submitted a written complaint for the NOC,and  then to foreclose the loan.The OP refused to assign a service request number or acknowledge in writing.The complainant made several communication through SMS and Emails but finally made an online complaint on 30^th December,2020.Thereafter,the OP sent the foreclosure statement of his loan account of Rs,56,855.89/- extra as prepayment charges apart from the Principal and interest due.The complainant paid the full amount of Rs,10,23,401/- to the OP with objection.Thereafter,the OP issued NOC in favour of the complainant.The the complainant finding no other alternative came before the Ld. Commission to adjudicate the dispute after getting the NOC and have the right to claim the unjustified amount of RS,56,855.89/-charged as prepayment charges.The complainant prayed from the commission to direct the OP to refund of Rs,56,855.89/ towards excess amount charged,Rs,2,00,000/ as compensation towards the harassment,mental agony and unfair trade practice.Rs,50,000/ as litigation cost.

  OP  has contested the case by filing their WV contending inter alia that the instant complaint is false,baseless,vexatious,speculative,harassive,malafide and misconceived. The complaint as framed as filed is not maintainable against the OP and is liable to be dismissed.OP stated that the complainant has availed an Auto loan from the OP in October,2019 for an amount of Rs,12,00,000/-(Rupees Twelve Lakhs ) only for a tenure of 60 months with interest payable at 9% with an amount of Rs,24,849/-(Rupees Twenty Four Thousand Eight Thousand Eight Hundred and Forty Nine)only payable towards equated monthly installments. The complainant had dully filled up a loan application form and also executed a loan agreement submitted the same to the Bank along with a document titled “Key Fact Statement” and most important Information which contained a breakup of the commercial terms and conditions applicable to the instant loan.The document key fact statement accepted and signed by the complainant at the time of applying the loan,foreclosure charges of 5% along with the applicable GST.It is submitted by the OP that the complainant was provided with the correct breakup of foreclosure charges and thereafter the complainant’s allegations as regards he would be required to pay a sum of Rs,56,855.89/ extra towards prepayment charges apart from principal and interest due was an unfair trade practice on the part of the OP Bank is denied its entity as alleged or at all.OP submitted that the Ld.Forum should  dismiss the instant complaint in lmine.  

Points for Determination

In the light of the above pleadings, the following points necessarily have come up for determination.

1) Whether the OP is deficient in rendering proper service to the Complainant?
            2)  Whether the OP has indulged in unfair trade practice?

           3)  Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief or reliefs as prayed for?

Decision with Reasons

Point Nos. 1 to 3 :-

       The above mentioned points are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity in discussion.

            We have travelled over the documents placed on record. The complainant has filed his Evidence supported by affidavit. W/V  have been filed by the OP. The fact of the case in brief is that  the complainant took a car loan being agreement no.LACAL00040984411 dated 25.10.2019,registration no.WB02AP6352 of Rs,12,00,000 from the OP Bank against a monthly EMI of Rs,24,849/.Due to transfer of job to Mumbai the complainant asked for NOC for transfer of his vehicle but the OP was unwilling to issue such NOC describing an onerous set of requirements. The complainant submitted a written request that NOC be granted or to foreclose the loan. The complainant made several request for the same but OP neglected the issue. Finally the complainant paid the full amount of RS,10,23,401/- with an extra payment of of Rs,56,855.89/ as a foreclosure charges .Thereafter the OP issued NOC in favor of the complainant.

Here,the OP mentioned in his WV that the complainant has availed an Auto loan from the OP whereas the complainant mentioned the car loan which registered as private so the statements are contradictory in nature.

OP Bank stated in their WV that the complainant had executed a document titled “Key Fact Statement and Most Important Information” which contained a breakup of the commercial terms and conditions applicable to the instant loan.The statement accepted and signed by the complainant at the time of applying the loan, foreclosure charges of 5% along with the applicable GST.But the complainant denied the statement and stated that there is no mention in the documents related to prepayment charges and also not revealed that the car loan was issued on fixed rate of interest.

The reference of the circular of RBI dated May7,2014 bearing no.DBOD.Dir.BC.No.110/13.03.00/2013-14 states that proposing certain measures for consumer protection.It was indicated that “ in the interest of their consumers, banks should consider allowing their borrowers the possibility of prepaying floating rate term loans without penalty.Accordingly,it is advised that banks will not be permitted to charge foreclosure charges/Pre-payment penalties on all floating rate term loans sanctioned to individual borrowers with immediate effect”   

Banks and other financial institutions are governed by the guidelines made by the RBI not merely self made terms and conditions. It is also misleading the consumer to get signed  on a merely piece of documents and presents it as evidence of acceptance.Financial institutions  are compelled to accept the guidelines framed by the RBI. The OP Bank failed to provide any other documentary evidence or guidelines of the above mentioned subject which can establishes the case. We apprehend  that it might be a deliberate attempt on the part of the OP Bank to grab the innocent customers in an illegal way by creating pressure on him. We also apprehend that in some cases they might have been successful in grabbing the hard earned money of their customers specially those customers who are not able to reach to the commission. The OP has miserably failed to defend  their subject case.

Considering all the actions and inactions of the OP against the claims of foreclosure  charges submitted by the complainant we are of the opinion that there is deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of the OP.

In view of what has been stated above we are of the considered view that the OP has failed to establish the case against the complainant.

In the result, the consumer complaint succeeds.

Hence,

Ordered

That the complaint case be and the same is allowed on contest against OP  with the following directions.

1. The OP Bank is directed to refund of Rs,56,855,89 towards excess amount charged as pre-payment charges.
2. The OP Bank further directed to pay Rs,20,000/- to the complainant as compensation towards harassment and mental agony
3. The OP Bank is also directed to pay a sum of Rs.  10,000/- to the complainant as litigation cost.

The above order is to be complied by the OP within a period of 45 days from the date of this order. In default, the complainant will be at liberty to put the order into execution.

Copy of the judgment be delivered to the parties free of cost as per the C.P. Act and Judgment be uploaded in the website of the Commission for perusal of the parties.