Ms. Nipur Chandna, Member

          The complainants had taken a home loan from the OP bank, against property bearing No. House No. 4, Pocket 1, Jasola Vihar, Delhi – 76.  It is alleged by the complainant that the OP sanctioned the first home loan to the complainants bearing home loan account No. LBDEL00000939263 for the sum of Rs.70,00,000/- on dated 28.5.2015, and subsequently sanctioned two more home loans i.e. LBNOD-03001300777 for Rs.30,72,480/- on dated 5.4.2006, LBDOD0000146 2255 for Rs.1,50,000/- on 20.12.2006 respectively. It is further alleged by the complainant that in the month of April, 2009 the Standard Chartered bank approached him for taking over the existing loan mentioned above but he complainant was required to supply copies of certain documents which were in the possession of the OP to avail of the opportunity offered by Standard Chartered Bank. Therefore, complainant approached OP for giving the authenticated copies of the required documents of  properties to the complainant, but the OP with the intention to harass the complainant stated that the documents had been misplaced.  However, these documents were provided by the OP to the complainant only on the service of legal notice.  It is further   alleged by the complainant that on 22.5.2009, the complainant paid entire amount in respect of all the above three home loan accounts under protest as the same include the exaggerated foreclosure charges as well as other miscellaneous charges not legally recoverable from him.  It is alleged by the complainant that the OP has illegally charges Rs.9096.16 paisa on account of cheque bouncing charges,  despite receiving the legal notice in which OP were advised not to en-cash the EMI/ECS with immediate effect for the month of April 2009, as the OPs were not giving the authenticated copies of the aforesaid loan documents to him.  The OP has also illegally charged a sum of Rs,4,83,816.39 on account of foreclosure charges.  The complainant vide letter dated 28.5.2009 requested the OP to refund the aforesaid amounts illegally charged but to no effect.  It is alleged by the complainant that the OP has been guilty of deficiency in service as a result of which they have suffered huge monetary loss.  Hence, the complaint.

          The OP bank has contested the complaint and has filed a written statement.  It has denied any deficiency in service on its part and has claimed that the OP never committed any error, omission or negligence and it is acting within the cannon of law.  Para 6 of the written statement is relevant for the purpose of the decision of this complaint and is reproduce as under:  

               6. That the payment made by the complainants of the foreclosure charges are as per the normal banking policies and procedures.  The foreclosure charges are neither illegal nor unknown in the banking industry.  Such charges are rightly levied by the banks as per the agreed terms and conditions between the parties and forms an integral part of the contract between the parties.  Foreclosure charges are rightly and legally levied by the bank at the time of foreclosure of the loan.  The present complaint is thus devoid of any merits and deserves outright dismissal.                                                                       

          The complainant has filed his evidence by way of his affidavit. The counsel of the OP however, submitted that the OP did not want to file/lead any evidence and relies upon its reply for the disposal of the complaint.

          We have heard arguments advanced at the bar and have perused the record.

          The facts are not disputed in this case.  It is admitted by the counsel for the OP that they had levied the foreclosure charges on the home loans, under the pretext that foreclosure charges are neither illegal nor unknown in the banking industry.  Such charges are rightly levied by the banks as per the agreed terms and condition between the parties and form an integral part of the contract between the parties.

          However, we are not convinced with the contention of the counsel for the OP.  The counsel for the OP has failed to place on record a copy of the agreed terms and conditions under which OP is claiming that its action of levying of foreclosure charges is right and legally correct.

          Moreover, it was held by the Hon’ble State Commission, Delhi in State Bank of India V/s Usha Vaid (Dr.) & Anr. II (2008) CPJ 166 that

No bank or for that purpose finance companies can be fallowed to indulge in restrictive trade practice by binding the consumer to go on availing loan even if rate of interest charged by the said bank is much higher than the other banks and any such clause which operates adversely to the consumer like Clause 4 has to be held as void and, therefore, not enforceable.

          In the present case also the complainant has availed of the facility of transfer of loan from ICICI bank to Standard Chartered Bank, the Standard Chartered bank took over the loan of the complainant on 22.5.2009, hence the foreclosure charges levied by the OP bank is illegal.

      The complainant had clearly instructed the OP bank vide e-mail dated 27.4.2009 to immediately stop demand for ECS payment of EMIs, as the OP bank had failed to supply the conveyance deed of the property to the complainant in time to be forwarded to Standard Chartered bank.  Despite the instruction, the OP bank had failed to supply the document in time to the complainant and had rather levied the cheque bouncing charges of Rs.9,096.16 which also amounts to deficiency in services.  In the result, the OP bank had put the complainant to much physical harassment and mental agony.

          We therefore, hold that the OP bank  guilty of deficiency in services and direct it as under:-

1.    To pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.4,92,912.55 (Rs.4,83,816.39 + 9096.16) alongwith interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of foreclosure i.e. 22.5.2009 till payment.

2.    To pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation for the pain and agony suffered by him.

3.    To pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.10,000/- as a cost of litigation.

          The OP shall pay this amount within a period of 30 days from the date of this order failing which they shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount @ 10% per annum.  If the OP fails to comply with this order, the complainant may approach this Forum for execution of the order under Section 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act.

          Copy of the order be made available to the parties as per rule.  File be consigned to record room.

          Announced in open sitting of the Forum on.....................