Nidhi Verma, Member

1        The present complaint has been received from the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Amritsar by the order of the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Punjab, Chandigarh for its disposal.

2        The complainant has filed the present complaint by invoking the provisions of Consumer Protection Act under Section  11 and 12 against the opposite parties on the allegations that the complainant is customer of HDFC Bank Limited, having branch at Batala Road, Amritsar having his saving bank account No. 18221000022541. On 20.6.2017, the complainant approached the opposite party bank at Batala Road Amritsar to obtain an educational loan, but the officers of the bank namely Ms. Prabhjot Kaur Arora, Mr. Purshottam and Mr. Sahil told the complainant that he cannot get any educational loan. The aforesaid officers of the bank also told the complainant that they have an offer of personal loan of Rs. 5 Lacs in the saving bank account of the complainant. They further represented the complainant that the bank shall charge only 7% interest per annum over the said personal loan and in this regard the complainant agreed to obtain a personal loan of Rs. 5 Lacs against interest @7% per annum from the opposite party bank. It was further represented by the concerned officers of the bank that no documentation is required for obtaining the aforesaid personal loan, as the said offer is from the bank to the complainant being a prudent and old customer of the bank. It was represented by the bank officers to the complainant that the complainant is only to send request for personal loan to the bank and the bank will send an OTP and after submitting the said OTP by the complainant to the Bank the amount of personal loan shall be transferred in the saving bank account of the complainant. The complainant, bonafidely upon the aforesaid representation made to him by the aforesaid officers of the bank and agreed to obtain the aforesaid personal loan of Rs. 5,00,000/- on interest @7% per annum and sent request for personal loan from his mobile NO. 98722-17762 on 20.6.2017, by that time the bank’s official to come next day. On 21.6.2017, the complainant approached the opposite party Bank alongwith OTP and after submitting the OTP the bank officials told the complainant to go home and that the amount of loan shall be transferred in the account of the complainant. Accordingly, the said personal loan of Rs. 5 Lacs was sanctioned to the complainant on 21.6.2017 and the loan amount was transferred on 21.6.2017 and the loan amount was transferred in to the aforesaid saving bank account of the complainant and in this regard the complainant received a e mail from the opposite party bank wherein it was mentioned that the said personal loan of Rs.  14.70% per annum. The complainant also shocked to know that the aforesaid rate of interest over the said loan account, as he had never agreed to pay such huge interest on the said loan amount. The complainant also came to know that the bank has transferred a sum of Rs. 4,89,090/- instead of Rs. 5 Lacs in his saving bank account after deducting the interest and other charges like processing charges, file charges etc. which were never explained to the complainant at the time of availing the said loan facility. This loan was offered by the bank itself and it was processed on the basis of OTP and no documentation was effected between the parties for the processing of the aforesaid personal loan. After receiving the aforesaid email from the bank, the complainant immediately approached the opposite party bank at Batala Road, Amritsar but the aforesaid officers of the bank told the complainant that since the bank’s working time is over and the complainant has to come on the next working day. On 22.6.2017, the complainant again approached the opposite party bank at Batala road, Amritsar and requested that he had never agreed to pay 14.70% per annum interest over the said loan facility and he also asked about the deduction of Rs. 10,910/- from the loan amount, upon which the officials of the opposite party told the complainant that the amount deducted from the loan amount is processing charges, documentation and other incidental charges. The complainant requested the opposite party that he had never been declared about the aforesaid rate of interest as well as deduction of the aforesaid amount and that the officials of the bank had agreed to charge 7% interest over the loan amount but the officials of the opposite party bank did not adhere to the genuine requests of the complainant and openly told that the complainant has to pay the installments of the loan alongwith interest @14.70%. On 22.6.2017, the complainant refused to accept the terms and conditions of the said loan and requested that he does not want to continue with the foresaid loan facility, as he has been misrepresented by the bank officer as such the complainant requested the opposite party to take back the loan amount and in this regard the complainant issued a cheque bearing No. 000003 dated 22.6.2017 for Rs. 4,89,000/-, drawn on HDFC Bank, Batala Road, Amritsar in favour of opposite party bank and requested to close the said loan account. The said cheque was received by the officers of the bank under their sign and signature on 22.6.2017 at about 3.55 p.m. the complainant also moved a representation to the bank on the same day but the aforesaid bank officers of the bank told the complainant that they cannot close the loan account and he should go the head office of the bank at Mall Road, Amritsar.  The complainant approached the head office of the bank at Mall Road, Amritsar where the complainant met with Mr. Deepak Jindal, Operation Head Loan Department and told them about all the aforesaid story but the said offices of the bank told the complainant that the complainant has to continue with the aforesaid loan account at least for three years and he has to pay interest of the three years. The complainant requested that he has been misrepresented by the said officers of the bank, but the said officers of the head office did not pay any heed to the genuine request of the complainant and rather misbehaved with the old aged complainant and used derogatory remarks and abusive language against the complainant before other customers of the bank and openly threatened that they are not going to close the said loan account and complainant is free to do whenever he wants. The bank officers of the such kind of banking instructions use to misrepresent their customer to fulfill their targets given by the bank and in order to fulfill their targets. The complainant also sent various emails to the higher officers of the bank which have been duly replied by the higher authorities of the opposite party bank and after harassing the complainant for atleast couple of week, the higher officers of the bank asked the complainant to deposit Rs. 4,89,000/-, thereby the bank has charged Rs. 8,000/- as processing charges/ documentation charges from the complainant, when the aforesaid loan transaction transition was purely a digital transaction. The opposite party bank has illegally charged Rs. 8,000/- from the complainant, as no documentation was ever effected between the parties. the complainant has not used even a single penny from the loan amount, as the said loan was a result of misrepresentation made by the officers of the opposite party. The opposite party is liable to refund the amount of Rs. 8,000/- which they have illegally charged from the complainant. The complainant has prayed  the following reliefs:-

(a)     The opposite party may kindly be  directed to pay Rs. 8,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @18% per annum w.e.f. July 2017 till its actual realization.

(b)     A compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- may be awarded to the complainant.

(c)      The litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 22,000/- may be awarded to the complainant.

3        After formal admission of the complaint, notice was issued to Opposite Parties and opposite parties appeared through counsel and filed written version and contested the complaint by interalia pleadings that no cause of action has arisen to the complainant to file the present complaint against the opposite parties since the opposite parties have acted as per the provision of law and strict banking rules and regulations. No complaint lies against the opposite parties No. 2 to 5 in personal capacity being officials of the opposite party No.1.  “The present complaint is liable to be dismissed against the opposite parties No. 2 to 5. The complainant applied online through net banking to the opposite party No. 1 for financial assistance to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000/- to meet some personal expenses in the shape of personal loan. The complainant submitted his application online and also accepted the terms and conditions of the said loan by checking on the tab “I Agree”. The said application of the complainant was processed and he was sanctioned the loan to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000/- vide loan account No. 60104872, on 21.6.2017. The detailed terms and conditions of the said loan was available on the website and by checking to the tab “I Agree”  the complainant confirmed that he has understood the same and agreed to abide by the same. The complainant was aware of the fact that certain charges shall be deducted as processing charges, File charges, etc. As per terms and conditions of the said loan, the complainant is liable to be their interest on the loan amount at the rate of 14.70% per annum (Fixed Rate) on monthly reducing balance. The complainant is liable to repay the said loan in 36 equaled monthly installments of Rs. 17,259/- each starting from 7.8.2017 to 7.7.2020. All the details were available on the website and it was only going through all these details the complainant accepted the terms and conditions and it was only on his acceptance, the said loan was sanctioned by the opposite party NO. 1. On the request of the complainant, the said loan was cancelled by the opposite party no. 1 and the amount was reversed after deducting the amount of Rs. 8,000/- as process charges as provided for under the rules and regulations of the Bank. Since the complainant is liable to pay the said amount upon cancellation of the loan and it was within the knowledge of the complainant, the complainant is estopped to raise any dispute against the terms and conditions more particularly the rate of interest and the charges deducted by the opposite party from the disbursement amount. Since there is no lapse on the part of the opposite parties, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. There is no deficiency in services or malpractice committed by the opposite parties, as such the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. The complainant willfully and with free mind applied to the Bank for financial assistance. He confirmed and accepted the terms and conditions of the said loan. At this stage he cannot put the blame of misguiding and misrepresentations on any officer of the bank.   The complainant was very well aware of the fact that said loan shall be sanctioned by the opposite party no. 1 with interest at the rate of 14.70% p.a. and that certain amount shall be deducted from the disbursement amount as processing charges, PRE-EMI, interest etc. as also explained above. The opposite party No.  1 is a reputed banking institution with a large network of branches all over India and having millions of customers. As per the request of the complainant, the said loan was cancelled and amount was reversed subject to reduction of Rs. 8000/- as process charges. The opposite party has denied the other contents of the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the same.

4        To prove his case, the complainant has placed on record affidavit of complainant Ex. CW1/A, copy of cheque of loan amount return Ex. C-1, copy of the application Ex. C-2, copies of e mails Ex. C-3, copy of customer request cum acknowledgement slip Ex. C-4, copy of the cheque of loan amount return Ex. C-5, C.D. Ex. C-6, communication on the CD Ex. C-7 and closed the evidence. On the other hands, Ld. counsel for the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Rajinder Prashad Deputy Legal Manager, Ex. OP1, copy of the print out of personal detail and confirmation given by the complainant Ex. OP2, print out of customer SI debt authorization form submitted by the complainant Ex. OP3, copy of terms and conditions of loan Ex. OP4, copy of stamp duty paid by the OP No. 1 Ex. OP5 and closed the evidence.

5        We have heard the Ld. counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record..

6        In the present complainant,the complainant has saving bank account in HDFC BANK, Amritsar vide no. 18221000022541.On dated, 20.06.2017, The complainant approached the opposite party bank at batala road Amritsar to obtain an educational loan but the officers of the bank Told the complaint that he cannot get any educational loan they also told the complaint that they have an offer of personal loan of ₹5,00,000 in the saving bank account of the complainant. They further represented the complaint that the bank shall charge only 7% per annum over the said personal loan and in this regard the complainant agreed to obtain a personal loan of ₹5,00,000 against interest at the rate 7% per annum from the opposite party bank.It was further represented by the officers of the bank that no documentation is required for obtaining the personal loan as they said offer is for the bank to the complainant being old customer of office the bank. The bank officer also told the complainant that the complainant is only to send request for personal loan to the bank and the bank will send a OTP and after submitting the said OTP by the complainant to the bank the amount of personal loan shall be transferred in the saving bank account of the complainant. After that on dated 20.06.2017 complainant send the request from his mobile no. 9872217762 and he submitted the OTP to bank officials on dated 21.06.2017. Later , complainant got the Email from the bank that “the loan of Rs 5 lacs has been sanctioned to complainant and the same is required to be repaid by him alongwith the interest @14.70 per annum. Further a sum of Rs 4,89,090/ was transferred to his account instead of Rs 5lacs , after deducting The interest and  other changes , like processing charges, file charges, etc. Which were never explained to the complainant at the time of availing the said loan facility.It is pertinent to mention over here that this loan was offered by the bank itself and it was processed on the basis of OTP and no documentation was affected between the parties for the processing of the personal loan. On dated 22.06.2017 the complainant approached the opposite party bank at batala road Amritsar and requested that he had never agreed to pay 14.70% per annum interest over the said loan and he also asked about the deduction of rupees 10,910 from the loan amount. The complainant refused to accept the terms and conditions of loan and request to cancel the loan as he has been misguided by the bank officer the complainant issued a cheque bearing number 000003 dated 22 June 2017 ₹4 4,89,090/- Drawn on HDFC Bank batala road Amritsar in favour of opposite party bank and requested to close these said loan account. The complainant also visited the bank at Mall Road , Amritsar to close his loan account But bank official told him that they have to continue with the loan account for at least 3 years. Later the complainant moved various e-mails to the higher officers of the bank , which have been duly replied by them and after that bank asked the complainant to deposit rs 4,89,090/- thereby the bank has charged Rs 8000/- processing charges/documentation charges but the aforesaid loan transaction was purely a digital transaction. In the written version of the OP has stated that the complainant applied “online ” through ‘net banking' to the OP No 1 and complainant submitted his application online and also accepted the terms and conditions of the said loan by clicking on the tab ‘I agree’ . The Complainant was aware of the fact that certain charges shall be deducted from the disbursement amount as Pre EMI interest ,processing charges, file charges etc. however on the request of the complainant the said loan was canceled by the opposite party number one and the amount was reversed after deducting the amount of ₹8000 as process charges as provided for under The rules and regulations of the bank.  The complainant is liable to pay the said amount upon cancellation of the loan and was within the knowledge of the complainant. We have heard the Ld. counsel and we have gone through the documents on record . The only defence of the OP No 1 is that the complainant applied for the said loan on the website  and by clicking to the tab ‘I Agree’ the complainant confirmed that he has understood the  terms and conditions and agreed to abide by the Same . Moreover the complainant was aware of the fact that certain charges shall be deducted from the disbursement amount as Pre EMI interest, processing charges, file charges , etc.Loan schedule attached as ( OP1/2). Further , the complainant applied for the loan on dated 21.06.2017 and on very next day , dated 22.06.2017, the complainant again approached the OP bank and requested that he had never agreed to pay 14.70% per annum interest over the said loan . Moreover he refused to accept the terms and conditions of the said loan and requested that he does not want to continue with the aforesaid loan facility , as he has been misrepresented by the bank officials . Since in call recording detail communication (Ex.C.7) bank official Sahil said to his manager “mai ta sir dastaehna nu kikharchapaina je kehndemainhi eh kharcha pay karna ”.  As per the complainant evidence EX.C2 application for cancellation of loan email sent to OP (Ex. C-3), call recording communication (Ex.C-7) .We admitted the fact that the complainant has not used even a single penny from the loan amount and he requested for the cancellation on very next day after the sanction of the loan amount. But he has failed to provided any evidence  on record which proves that the bank officials misrepresented the loan interest rate as 7% but it is pertinent to mention here that the terms and conditions of the loan as the same was applied by the complainant “online” are available for the perusal of the complainant on the web site of the bank and the complainant applied for the loan after going through the same. Further, it is pertinent to mention here that since the complainant intended to cancel the said loan and he was allowed to do so , subject to deduction of Rs 8000/-  as processing charges etc, about which he was also made aware, as also explained in EX.OP1/2 in the column No. D. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India vide its Judgment dated 6.10.2021 passed in matter of SGS India Ltd. Vs Dolphin International Ltd. held that “The onus of proof of deficiency in services is on the complainant in the complaints under the Consumer Protection Act 1986. It is the complainant who had approached the Commission, therefore, without any proof of deficiency, the opposite party cannot be held responsible for deficiency in service. the Hon’ble Bench of Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice V Ramasubramanium, in Hon’ble Supreme Court in its Judgment reported into the matter of Ravneet Singh Bagga Vs KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, has held, “The deficiency in service cannot be alleged without attributing fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service. The burden of proving the deficiency in service is upon the person who alleges it. The compliant has, on facts, been found to have not established any willful, fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the service of the respondent. the complainant has placed one recording in the shape of CD Ex. C-6. The same cannot be proved as per the provisions of the 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, as such, there is no relevancy in the present complaint.

7        In view of the above discussion,we hold that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP  and the complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for . Hence case is dismissed with no order as to costs. Copy of order will be supplied by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar to the parties as per rules. File be sent back to the District consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar.

Announced in Open Commission

06.09.2022