STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH.

APPEAL NO.591 OF 2009

1]          General Manager, Regd. Office GE Money Financial Services Ltd., Unit No.401 & 402, 4^th Floor, Aggarwal Millennium Tower, E-1, 2, 3 Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura, New Delhi.

2]          Manager, GE Countrywide, SCO 2441-2442, Ground Floor, Himalaya Marg, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh.

3]          Branch Manager, SCO 126-127, IInd Floor, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh 160008.

                                       ………Appellants.

Versus

Jagjit Kaur Grewal d/o S.Harbhagwan Singh Grewal, R/o H.No.1830/2, Phase-10, Distt. SAS Nagar.

…Respondent.

BEFORE:            HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITAM PAL (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                        HON’BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.

Argued by:          Sh. Jatin Kumar, Advocate for the appellants.

                    None for the respondent.

MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.

1.                 This is appeal filed against order of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) dated 11.9.2009 passed in complaint case No.526 of 2009 : Ms. Jagjit Kaur Grewal Vs. Genral Manager, GE Money Financial Services Limited and others.

2.                 Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that she availed a loan of Rs.42,500/- from OPs on 35.2006 at the interest rate of 24.72% per annum vide Annexure C-1. it was averred by the complainant that she was paying monthly installments regularly.  It was next alleged in the complaint that in response to an offer of OPs for Top Up Loan without interest, the complainant get a Top Up Loan of Rs.11,039/-.  The case of the complainant is that later on OPs started charging interest at the rate of 39.22% on the said Top Up Loan amount.  As per the complainant, after paying 35 installments, she came to know vide letter of OPs dated 8.7.2008 that OPs are charging exorbitant rate of interest at 41.22% per annum i.e. more than double the rate of interest i.e. 24.72%, which was agreed upon between the parties vide letter (Annexure C-1) dated 23.5.2006.  The allegation of the complainant is that OPs charged exorbitant rate of interest from her without her consent. The complainant, it was averred, also served a legal notice (C-3) upon the OPs but the same was not replied. Alleging the excess charging of interest on the loan availed by the complainant than the agreed one by the OPs as deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice, the complainant had filed the present complaint before the learned District Forum.

3.                 OPs initially appeared before the learned District Forum through Sh. Ajay Singh Parmar, Advocate and sought time to file reply and evidence but they did not turned up on 12.8.2009 because the District Bar Association, Chandigarh had decided to boycott the learned District Forum on 12.8.2009 due to the reason that the learned District Forum, in a separate matter, had passed an order against an advocate directing him to pay compensation for deficiency in service.  Thus, the OPs were proceeded against exparte on 12.8.2009 due to their non appearance.  Subsequently, an application for setting aside the exparte order was also moved by the learned counsel for the OPs but the same was also dismissed.

4.                 The learned District Forum, in its analysis of the complaint, recorded in the impugned order that in letter (Annexure C-1) sent by the OPs to the complainant, the rate of interest was mentioned to be 24.72% and there was no agreement between the parties to enhance the rate of interest at any stage. As per the learned District Forum, OPs have not been able to show as to in view of which agreement between the parties, the rate of interest was enhanced. In the view of learned District Forum, as per Annexure C-1, the tenure of installments was 30 months but vide Annexure C-2, the number of installments was raised to 42.  The learned District Forum next recorded in the impugned order that OPs had mentioned the rate of interest as 24.72% but they were in fact charging interest as 39.22% or 41.22% from the complainant, which amounted to an unfair trade practice. Finally, the learned District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the OPs to redraw Annexure C-2, the details of the repayment of the loan, by taking rate of interest as 24.72%. It also directed the OPs to pay the complainant an amount of Rs.5,000/- as compensation for causing him harassment and adopting unfair trade practice.  The order was directed to be complied with by the OPs within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order failing which OPs were made liable to pay the entire amount along with penal interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 17.4.2009 till actually payment besides Rs.2,500/-as costs of litigation.

5.                 Aggrieved by the said order, OPs have filed the present appeal. The appeal having been taken on board, notice was sent to the respondent/complainant and record of complaint case was summoned from the District Forum. On the date of final hearing i.e. 14.7.2010, Sh. Jatin Kumar, Advocate appeared on behalf of the appellant/OP whereas none appeared on behalf of the respondent/complainant.

6.                 The learned counsel for the appellants/OPs submitted that the learned District Forum has not given any opportunity to the OPs to file reply and evidence in the complaint case. He further argued that had the OPs been provided an opportunity to file reply, OPs would have proved to the full satisfaction of the learned District Forum that the interest rate being charged by the OPs was not according to their will and fancy but the same was duly agreed upon by between the parties.  He finally prayed that the appeal be accepted and the impugned order be set aside.

7.                 We have gone through the record on file as well as the impugned order and have heard the learned counsel for the appellants/OPs. The sole point involved in the present appeal is as regards the rate of interest to be charged on the Top Up Loan facility extended to the respondent/complainant.

8.                 Before dwelling on to the merits of the case, we would like to mention here that the prayer of the appellants/OPs to given them an opportunity of being heard and file their version in terms of reply and affidavit before the learned District Forum, cannot be acceded to as they have themselves chose not to appear before the learned District Forum on the date fixed i.e.12.8.2009 for filing reply and evidence on behalf of OPs. Thus, at this stage, it cannot lie in the mount of the appellants/OP to say that they have not been granted any opportunity of being heard by the learned District Forum.

9.                 Now coming on to the merits of the case, on perusal of Annexure C-1 (letter dated 23.5.2006), it is brought out that the complainant was given a loan of Rs.42,500/- and the rate of interest was settled at 24.72%. The said loan amount was to be refunded in 30 EMIs of Rs.2292/- each. Subsequently, vide Annexure C-2, which is a copy of detail of repayment of Loan Account of the complainant, it is established that from 3.5.2006, OPs had started charging rate of interest @41.22% on the amount of Rs.42,500/- and subsequently, on 20.11.2006, when Top Up of Rs.11,039/- was given to the complainant, they started charging rate of interest @39.22%, which is double the rate of interest i.e.24.72% that was agreed upon between the parties vide Annexure C-1. It is also pertinent to mention here that there was no agreement between the parties to enhance the rate of interest at any stage because the notes printed on Annexure C-1 do not mention this fact. Had there been any such mention in Annexure C-1 regarding changing of interest rate at any stage at the sole discretion of OPs, the case would have been different. But there is nothing like that in the case in hand. Thus, once the rate of interest had been agreed upon between the parties @24.72% vide Annexure C-1, the change in the same on the higher side and that too double the rate of interest agreed upon vide Annexure C-1, cannot be accepted in the eye of law. We endorse the view held by the learned District Forum that the OPs had failed to show as to in view of which agreement, they had enhanced the rate of interest from 24.72% to 41.22@ or 39.22%. It is seen that it has become the general practice of private financial institutions/Banks to take the borrower surprisingly be enhancing the rate of interest and levying hidden charges, which were not told to the borrowers at the time of opting for loan facilities and this practice needs to be discarded. We are thus in consonance with the view expressed by the learned District Forum that there is deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of OPs in charging the complainant with enhanced rate of interest instead of the actual rate of interest i.e.24.72% agreed upon between the parties vide Annexure C-1. We are also in consonance with direction given by the learned District Forum to the OPs to redraw Annexure C-2 by taking the rate of interest as 24.72%. The amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.5,000/- and a further sum of Rs.2,500/- as costs of litigation awarded by the learned District Forum vide the impugned order also seems to be justified.

10.               In view of the foregoing discussion, we find no substance in the appeal and the same is dismissed.

11.               Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

Pronounced.

15^TH July 2010.

[JUSTICE PRITAM PAL]

PRESIDENT

[MRS. NEENA SANDHU]

MEMBER

Ad/-

APPEAL NO.591 OF 2009

PRESENT:          Sh. H. C. Kaushal, Advocate for the appellant.

                    Sh. Vinod Gupta, Advocate for the respondent.

                                       …..

                    Vide our detailed order of even date recorded separately, this appeal filed by the appellant has been dismissed.