Haryana

StateCommission

A/35/2017

BIRMATI DEVI - Complainant(s)

Versus

INDUSIND BANK LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

S.K.BIRIWAL

01 Mar 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

 

                                                                    First Appeal No  :   35 of 2017

Date of Institution:  10.01.2017

                                                                   Date of Decision:    01.03.2017

 

 

 

 

 

Smt. Birmati Devi wife of Sh. Ishwar Singh, resident of House No.824/9, Vishal Nagar, Rohtak, Gohana Road, Near New Bus Stand, Rohtak.

 

                             Appellant-Complainant

 

 

 

Versus

 

 

 

Chief Manager, Indusind Bank, Rohtak through Chief Manager, Near Appu Ghar, Civil Road, Rohtak.

Respondent-Opposite Party

 

 

 

 

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Mr. Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.

                             Mr. Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member

 

 

 

 

 

Argued by:          Mr. S.K. Biriwal, Advocate for the appellant.

 

 

 

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J. (ORAL)

 

          By filing the present appeal, Smt. Birmati-complainant has challenged the order dated December 02^nd, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak (for short, ‘District Forum’) whereby complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was dismissed.

2.      The complainant obtained loan of Rs.3,50,000/- from Indusind Bank, Rohtak-opposite party (for short, ‘bank’) to purchase a vehicle.  An agreement was executed between the complainant and the bank whereby rate of interest on the loan was 6.73 % for three years.  The loan was to be repaid in 35 equated monthly installments, that is, Rs.13000/- for 30 monthly installments and Rs.6133/- for remaining five installments. The complainant made the entire payment in two years and seven months.  On that account, the bank asked her to pay Rs.722.82, that is, foreclosure charges as the terms and conditions of the loan agreement.  The complainant did not pay the said amount.  She filed complaint before the District Forum pleading that the bank had charged higher rate of interest than the agreed upon. 

3.      During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the complainant-appellant could not show any document to prove that the bank had charged higher rate of interest than the agreed upon.  Thus, the order under challenge requires no interference.  The appeal is dismissed.  

 

 

Announced 01.03.017

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(Balbir Singh) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

UK