Haryana

Sonipat

CC/392/2015

Naveen Sangwan S/o Chander Sangwan - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC Bank Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

krishan Saroha

05 May 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

 

Complaint No.392 of 2015

Instituted on: 16.10.2015                 

Date of order: 05.05.2016

 

Naveen Sangwan son of Ram Chander Sangwan, resident of 529/1, Faiz Bazar, Moh. Kot, Sonepat.

…Complainant.           Versus

1.HDFC Bank Ltd. Branch office Kath Mandi, Rohtak road, Sonepat thorugh its authorized person/loan Incharge/Branch Manager.

2.Vikas Authorised Signatory HDFC Bank, Kath Mandi, Rohtak road, Sonepat.

                                  …Respondents.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh.Krishan Saroha Adv. for complainant.

Sh.Dinesh Bedi Adv. for respondent no.1.

Respondent no.2 ex-parte.

 

Before-  Nagender Singh-President. 

          Prabha Wati-Member.

    

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint  against the respondents alleging therein that he took personal loan of Rs.13,88,000/- from the respondent no.1 bank on 23.5.2014 and the said loan was repayable in monthly installment of Rs.33,569/- in total 60 installments. First installment was paid on 4.7.2014.  The complainant has paid 15 installments upto 9/2015.  In 9/2015, the complainant arranged funds and requested the respondent to clear his loan at once and the respondents told the complainant that he shall have to pay 4.56% on outstanding principal amount as pre-payment charges, whereas at the time of advancement of the loan, it was told that after one year of advancement of loan, if the complainant makes any prepayment of loan, no charges will be recovered from the complainant.  The complainant finding no other way, has cleared his loan account and has deposited the prepayment charges of Rs.51770/- under protest.  The respondents have also received one installment of Rs.33569/- in excess from the complainant.  The complainant has further submitted that he requested the respondents to refund the amount of Rs.51770/- charged on account of prepayment and to issue him the No due certificate, but of no use and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        The respondent no.1 has appeared and filed the written statement, whereas respondent no.2 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 6.11.2015.

          The respondent no.1 in its written statement has admitted the advancement of loan of Rs.13,88,000/- to the complainant.  The said loan was repayable by the complainant  in 60 EMI amounting to Rs.33569/- each.  The rate of interest was 15.75% pa.  The complainant was paying installments and has paid 15 installments.  One cheque no.146883/5-1 dated 4.11.2014 was bounced.  The complainant has requested the respondent no.1 to clear his loan before time.  The respondent no.1 has made clear the complainant about the guidelines of RBI and banking norms given regarding foreclosure amount to clear the loan account.  The said foreclosure amount was deposited by the complainant and the loan was closed by the bank.  The respondent no.1 has already issued the NOC to the complainant.  The complainant has paid/deposited the prepayment charges of Rs.51770/- with his free sweet will and not under protest and as per the terms and conditions of the agreement executed in between the complainant and respondent no.1.  So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the complainant and the complainant is not entitled for any relief and compensation and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.        We have heard the ld. Counsel for both the parties at length and have also gone through the entire relevant records available on the case file very carefully.

4.        Ld. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that the complainant took personal loan of Rs.13,88,000/- from the respondent no.1 bank on 23.5.2014 and the said loan was repayable in monthly installment of Rs.33,569/- in total 60 installments. First installment was paid on 4.7.2014.  The complainant has paid 15 installments upto 9/2015.  In 9/2015, the complainant arranged funds and requested the respondent to clear his loan at once and the respondents told the complainant that he shall have to pay 4.56% on outstanding principal amount as pre-payment charges, whereas at the time of advancement of the loan, it was told that after one year of advancement of loan, if the complainant makes any prepayment of loan, no charges will be recovered from the complainant.  The complainant finding no other way, has cleared his loan account and has deposited the prepayment charges of Rs.51770/- under protest.  The respondents have also received one installment of Rs.33569/- in excess from the complainant.  The complainant has further submitted that he requested the respondents to refund the amount of Rs.51770/- charged on account of prepayment and to issue him the No due certificate, but of no use and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.

          In support of his contentions, he has relied upon the case law titled as S.Krupandhi Ed. Trust Vs. Union of India, 2009(III)CPJ 92, Vijaya Bank Vs. CIIS Ed. Services Society, 2012(II) CPJ page 65 and M.Anees-Ur-Rahmad and others Vs. J&K Bank Ltd. 2008(II) CPJ page 178.

          Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.1 has admitted the advancement of loan of Rs.13,88,000/- to the complainant.  The said loan was repayable by the complainant  in 60 EMI amounting to Rs.33569/- each.  The rate of interest was 15.75% pa.  The complainant was paying installments and has paid 15 installments.  One cheque no.146883/5-1 dated 4.11.2014 was bounced.  The complainant has requested the respondent no.1 to clear his loan before time.  The respondent no.1 has made clear the complainant about the guidelines of RBI and banking norms given regarding foreclosure amount to clear the loan account.  The said foreclosure amount was deposited by the complainant and the loan was closed by the bank.  The respondent no.1 has already issued the NOC to the complainant.  The complainant has paid/deposited the prepayment charges of Rs.51770/- with his free sweet will and not under protest and as per the terms and conditions of the agreement executed in between the complainant and respondent no.1.  So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the complainant and the complainant is not entitled for any relief and compensation.

5.        After hearing both the ld. Counsel for the parties at length and after going through the entire relevant records available on the case file, we find force in the arguments advanced and law cited by the ld. Counsel for the complainant.  In the law cited by the ld. Counsel for the complainant, the demand of pre-closure charges is held not chargeable if loan discharged by the borrower paid at once before agreed period.  Similar is the position in the case in hand as the complainant has paid the balance loan amount to the respondent bank and the respondent bank has charged Rs.51770/- as pre-closure charges from the complainant, which cannot be said to be justified in any manner.

          Further more, Reserve Bank of India vide letter dated 7.5.2014 has issued directions to the banks on Levy of Foreclosure charges/pre-payment penalty.

          So, as per this directions of the Reserve Bank of India, the complainant is entitled to get the refund of the said amount from the respondent no.1. Thus, we hereby direct the respondent no.1 to refund the amount of Rs.51770/- (Rs.fifty one thousand seven hundred seventy) to the complainant within a period of 60 days from the date of passing of this order, failing which, the above said amount shall fetch interest at the rate of 09% per annum from the date of passing of this order till its realization.

         With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed qua respondent no.1.

Certified copy of this order be provided to

both the parties free of costs.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

 

Prabha Wati Member                Nagender Singh

DCDRF SNP                         President, DCDRF

                                      SNP.

ANNOUNCED 05.05.2016