BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 109 of 2023.
Date of Institution : 24.02.2023.
Date of Decision : 11.10.2024.
Nasib Singh aged about 59 years son of Shri Sudan Singh, resident of H. No. 51, Aggarwal Colony, Near Sagar Mani High School, Barnala Road, Sirsa, District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. HDFC Bank Ltd. Near Royal Diamond Complex, Near LIC Building, Laxmi Sweets, Sirsa Tehsil and District Sirsa through its Branch Manager.
2. HDFC Bank Ltd. Gautam Marg, Umed Mension Vaishali Nagar Jaipur District Jaipur (RAJ) through its Branch Manager.
...…Opposite party.
Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Before: SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR ………………PRESIDENT
MRS.SUKHDEEP KAUR……………………….MEMBER.
SH. OM PARKASH TUTEJA …………………MEMBER
Present: Sh. P.K. Berwal, Advocate for complainant.
Opposite parties already exparte.
ORDER
In brief, the case of complainant is that complainant had to purchase a flat at Jaipur (Rajasthan), therefore, in order to get the financial assistance, the complainant contacted the op no.1 bank and requested to advance him a sum of Rs. twenty lacs and after negotiations, the op no.1 bank had approved and sanctioned the loan of Rs.17,80,000/- which was to be repaid by complainant to op no.1 bank alongwith interest at the rate of @7.55% per annum in installments. After sanction of said loan amount, the same was released to him and he had purchased flat at Jaipur. That thereafter complainant started making payments of the installments to op no.1 bank time to time and he was never declared defaulter by op no.1 bank in this regard an amount of Rs.1,80,000/- was already deposited with the ops by complainant. It is further averred that meanwhile, the op no.1 bank offered the complainant to pay a sum of Rs.2950/- and promised that on deposit of above amount of Rs.2950/-, the rate of interest shall be reduced to 6.80% per annum from 7.55% per annum and since the offer was attractive and was beneficial to the complainant, therefore, complainant deposited a sum of Rs.2950/- with op no.1 bank vide cheque No.33 dated 26.02.2021 of HDFC bank from his account no. 50100117650473 but surprisingly despite payment of Rs.2950/- the rate of interest was not reduced by op no.1 bank as promised and regularly charging high rate of interest. It is further averred that in view of non cooperative attitude of op no.1 bank, the complainant visited the bank authorities and requested them to reduce the rate of interest as promised but surprisingly it was told to him that the rate of interest shall be reduced by op no.2 as the loan of complainant was got sanctioned by op no.1 from op no.2. That thereafter complainant approached the op no.2 bank a number of times and also sent message through email on 26.06.2021 but no response whatsoever was ever received by him and rate of interest has not been reduced till date. It is further averred that this act and conduct on the part of ops clearly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on account of which complainant has suffered unnecessary harassment and ops are liable to reduce the rate of interest and to overhaul the account of complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation for harassment etc. and also liable to pay Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses. Hence, this complaint.
2. Notice of the complaint was issued to the ops. None appeared on behalf of op no.1 despite service of notice. Notice issued to op no.2 through registered cover not received back and even after stipulated period none also appeared on behalf of op no.2. As such ops were proceeded against exparte.
3. The complainant in exparte evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex. CW1/A and documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C7.
4. We have heard learned counsel for complainant and have gone through the case file.
5. The complainant has not placed on file any agreement to prove the fact that what rate of interest on the loan amount was settled between complainant and ops. From the statement of account placed on file by complainant as Ex.C2, it is evident that ops are charging rate of interest at the rate of 6.80, 7.70, 8.70 and 9.05 meaning thereby that rate of interest was floating and not fixed. Although complainant has paid an amount of Rs.2950/- to the ops on 26.02.2021 as evident from statement of account Ex.C6 but complainant has failed to prove on record that said amount of Rs.2950/- was paid by him to the ops for decreasing interest amount as complainant has not placed on file any document of ops that rate of interest will be decreased on payment of Rs.2950/-. So, it cannot be said that such meager amount of Rs.2950/- was charged by ops from complainant for decreasing rate of interest on such huge amount of loan of Rs.17,80,000/- rather it is proved from certificate of ops dated 14.02.2023 Ex.C3 that complainant has been granted housing loan of Rs.17,80,000/- at the rate of 9.05% per annum and as such it cannot be said that initially rate of interest was fixed at the rate of 7.70 and then it was to be reduced at the rate of 6.80 on payment of Rs.2950/- by complainant. The amount of Rs.2950/- has been paid by complainant himself without placing on file any document of ops in this regard and it can be said that he has deposited the said amount for other purposes instead for reducing interest amount. So complainant has failed to prove his case through any cogent and convincing evidence.
6. In view of our above discussion, we do not find any merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed but with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced. Member Member President
Dt. 11.10.2024. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
