Before the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission [Central District] - VIII, 5th Floor Maharana Pratap ISBT Building, Kashmere Gate, Delhi
Complaint Case No.25/07.02.2020
Rajoo Chauhan
House No. 52, Balka Chowk, Aya Nagar,
Near Sunday Market, Delhi-110047 Complainant
Versus
HDFC Bank Limited
Regional Office (Delhi), No.9, 10, 4th Floor,
Express Building, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg,
New Delhi-110002 ...Opposite Party
Date of filing: 07.02.2020
Coram: Date of Order: 03.10.2024
Shri Inder Jeet Singh, President
Ms Rashmi Bansal, Member -Female
FINAL ORDER
Inder Jeet Singh , President
It is scheduled today for order (item no.9)
1.1. (Introduction to case of parties) – The complainant has grievances of unfair trade practice and deficiency of services that he applied for personal loan to the OP on the assurances that agreed rate of interest would be 11.5% per annum but when the loan was approved and disbursed, the OP secretly changed rate of interest to 16% pa on higher side. The complainant was constrained to pay/repay the loan at higher rate of interest of 16% pa. in place of 11.5% pa, the rate of interest is required to be reduced and also refund excess amount charged by 4.5% pa interest with the EMI. That is why, the complaint thereof, besides compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/-, legal expenses of Rs. 25,000/- incidental expense of Rs. 25,000/- and other relief claim.
1.2. The complaint is opposed that there is no unfair trade practice non deficiency of services on its part but the interest of 16% pa was agreed, when top-up loan facility through online was approved and there was no agreed rate of interest of 11.5% pa or else. The complainant is without cause of action.
2.1. (Case of complainant) – Succinctly, the complainant is having loan account No. 64504645 and he applied by application form No. 8100288007 online and after verification, the OP’s personal loan department disbursed loan amount Rs. 7,21,622/- to the complainant. The complainant had requested to merge his existing loan, which was at interest of 10.99% pa. The top up loan was agreed to be disbursed at 11.5% pa through OP’s, Relationship Manager, Sh. Rahul Sharma.
Thus, at the time of furnishing application form the rate of interest agreed was 11.5% but after disburse of loan, the OP secretly with ill intention, changed the rate of interest 16% pa fixed, consequently from 01.04.2019 to 31.03.2020 the complainant paid amount Rs.1,05,406.99p as interest to the OP besides further interest of Rs.87,290.89p from 01.04.2020 to 31.03.2021.
2.2. The OP has violated the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, the Code of Bank’s commitment to Customer and the Consumer Protection Act. There is negligence and sub standard quality services on the part of OP. Moreover, the OP has also indulged in merging the previous loan into the new loan by charging interest at the rate of 16% instead of the rate of interest of 11.5% agreed at the time of loan application. Moreover, complainant’s bank account was blocked and when the complainant requested to unblock it, there was no heed by the OP but an amount of Rs. 10,000/- was credited in his account illegally without taking any confirmation from the complainant that too by unblocking the account; it prevented the complainant to meet medical emergency.
There is also direction by Reserve Bank Of India in its master circular dated 01.07.2015, but it was not complied by the OP (the complainant further refers certain Studies conducted from time to time, which are augmentative in nature, the same was not being repeated here). The Complainant suffered not only financial burden/ losses because of charging excess interest of 4.5% but also suffered mental harassment, mental stress, agony for which OPs liable to compensate. That is why the complaint.
2.3 The complaint is accompanied with documents/copies of – registered post letter dated 27.012.2019, track report, application form/online, provisional certificate and other correspondence inclusive of email.
3.1 (Case of OP)- The OP opposed the complaint vehemently that the same is mis-conceived and it is based on misrepresentation of fact, therefore, the application is liable to be dismissed. The complainant sanctioned loan facility of loan A/c. No. 57972738 for Rs. 5,71,003/- on rate of interest 10.99% pa, which stand closed. He was also given loan by Loan Ac. 64504645 for Rs. 7,21,622/- at the rate of interest of 16% pa, the account is still active.
3.2. On 17.01.2019 the complainant applied for top-up loan facility of Rs. 7,21,622/- through online on his previous loan account , consequently the previous loan account No. 57972738 was closed on 18.01.2019 on payment of Rs. 5,20,606/- which was outstanding therein and top up loan was disbursed by A/c. No. 64504645.
This top up loan account facility was online, the application and agreement was executed through online method on 17.01.2019. The agreed date of interest was 16%pa. When top up loan was applied, there was no assurance given regarding rate of interest. As per loan application and schedule of top up loan, it is clear that complainant agreed for terms and condition of 16% rate of interest. After acceptance of the same online, the loan was disbursed. Moreover, the application form and schedule of loan agreement also show signature of customer in the box, who applied, accepted, authenticated, signed and delivered through net banking by using his/borrower’s net banking customer ID and password, by clicking “I agreed or similar icon on the online system”.
3.3 The OP also denies the allegation of debit/credit of Rs. 10,000/- that there is no hold or lien narration showing upon the bank account statement nor there was blockage account as alleged in bank account. There is no violation of Code or Act, 1949 by the OP. The complaint is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.
3.4 The written statement is accompanied with documents/copies of – board resolution dated. 17.10.2020 online application form and loan agreement, with certificate under section 65B of Indian Evidence Act, copy of SOA dated 17.11.2021 and CASA bank account statement.
4. (Replication of complainant) – The complainant filed para-wise reply to the written statement in form of rejoinder, the complainant reaffirms the complainant by denying the allegation of written statement that the complaint is valid, proper and allegations are correct, which are showing cause of action in favour of the complainant and against the OP.
5.1. (Evidence)- In order to prove the complaint, the complainant Shri Rajoo
Chaudhan led evidence by filing detailed affidavit of evidence with documents filed with the complaint.
5.2. Similarly to prove the defense version, the OP also led evidence by filing detailed affidavit of Ms. Bharti Thakur, A/R of OP for evidence with documents filed with written statement.
6.1 (Final hearing)- At this stage, the parties filed their written arguments. The parties were also given opportunity to make oral submission, then Shri Narinder Kumar, Advocate for the complainant and Ms Kashika Singh, Advocate for OP made their respective submissions.
6.2. It is relevant to mention that when the case was at the stage of final hearing, the complainant had filed an interim application seeking electronic record of online plate form, however, the application disposed of with certain observation in the order dated. 31.102023 that OP had expressed that it cannot produce bit by bit information of record of online plate form, which was technical, the OP was not having such record to produce; thus. the OP was constrained that when it cannot produce the record or with-held that record, then it was directed that he cannot plead or shield itself by producing such record at any plate-form or before the authorities against the complainant since the plea of OP was that it cannot produce the record. With this primarily observation the further issues are taken.
7.1 (Findings) – The contentions of both the sides are considered keeping in view in form of documentary evidence or contemporary circumstance explained by the witness of that material time when loan was applied or top up loan was requested by the complainant.
7.2. After taking them into the consideration, the following conclusions are drawn-
(a) There is no dispute that the complainant has availed first loan facility for Rs. 5,71,003/- and subsequently on 17.01.2019 he applied for top up loan of Rs. 7,21,622/- which was also sanctioned by the OP.
(b) There is also no dispute the complainant applied for top up loan by online application and agreement was also executed. But the dispute is that according to complainant the rate of interest was 11.5% and it was also showing on the screen during online process but when loan was disbursed, it was showing interest at the rate of 16%.
(c) The application form/agreement proved by the complainant shows rate of interest of 16% along with loan tenure of 60 months and EMI of Rs. 17,548/- against of loan amount of Rs. 7,21,622/- and the rate of interests is 16% pa [monthly reducing – fixed rate; pages 23 and 24 of the paper book of complaint]. The plea of complainant of interest of 11.5% is contrary the documentary record of interest of 16%. In other words, it is a situation of oral evidence of complainant against documentary record.
(d) In order to rebut the documentary evidence, the complainant was required to show while filing in online application it was demonstrating interest of 11.5%, since the things were in auto generated mode under the system. The complainant has not produced either documentary record either like screenshot or video-graph or photo that at the material moment when he had approved the application, the interest was being shown at the rate of 11.5% but at the time of final approval of acceptance of loan, it was showing rate of interest of 16% [monthly reducing – fixed rate].
In addition, it is not just rate of interest mentioned in the application/agreement but there are other corresponding factors namely 60 EMIs of Rs.17,548/- but the complainant does not plea any aspect regarding number of EMIs or amount of each EMI to be other than mentioned in the application/agreement.
(e) The analysis and conclusion drawn in sub-clauses (a) to (d) above, do not establish that the rate of interest agreed was 11.5% or it was being shown online but the interest was at the rate of 16%pa [monthly reducing – fixed rate] which is also being mentioned in the application proved by the complainant.
(f) There is no proof of other allegations by the complainant. There is also no proof of allegations of deficiency of services or unfair trade practice.
7.3. So, in terms of conclusion in paragraph 7.2 above, the complaint fails. The complaint is dismissed. No order has to cost.
8. Announced on this 3rd day of October, 2024 [अश्विन 11, साका 1946]. Copy of this Order be sent/provided forthwith to the parties free of cost as per rules for compliance, besides to upload on the website of this Commission.
[Rashmi Bansal]
Member (Female)
[Inder Jeet Singh]
President
[ijs122]
***
