Haryana

StateCommission

A/318/2018

M/S HDB FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

JAIDEV - Opp.Party(s)

VIPUL DHARMANI

11 Nov 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                                                 

                                                         First Appeal No.318 of 2018

                                                 Date of Institution: 14.03.2018

                                                     Date of Final Hearing: 09.08.2022

Date of pronouncement: 11.11.2022

 

1. M/s HDB Financial Services Ltd, having office at 2^nd Floor, Gokul Towers, Panjagutta Main road, Panjagutta, Hyderabad 500082, through its Law Officer-Authorized Signatory Sh.Amit Kumar.
2. M/s HDB Financial Services Ltd. having Branch at 2^nd Floor, SCO, Red Square Market, Near Atithi Hotel, Urban Estate, Hissar, through its Law Officer-Authorized signatory Sh.Amit Kumar.

…..Appellants

Versus

Jaidev S/o  Sh.Ram Kumar, R/o C/o M/s Ram Kumar Ram Kishan, Bus Stand Road, Backside Bus Stand, Hansi,Distt. Hisar, Haryana.

…..Respondent

CORAM:    S.P.Sood, Judicial  Member

                    Suresh Chander Kaushik, Member

                   

Present:-    Mr.Vipul Dharmani, Advocate for the appellants.

                   Mr.Dharampal Gill, Advocate for the respondent.

 

                                                 ORDER

S P SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

          The present appeal No.318 of 2018 has been filed against the order dated 30.01.2018 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hisar (In short  now “District Commission”) in complaint case No.325 of 2016, which was allowed.

2.       The brief facts of the case are that complainant  was doing a business of Kriyana under in the name  and style of Ram Kumar Ram Kishan at Bus Stand Road Hansi and this firm pertaining to complainant was registered as Ram Kumar and Ram Kishan. The complainant was in need of money and approached opposite party No.1 for raising a personal loan.  OP No.1 sanctioned a loan amount of Rs.15,12,345/- and as agreed this loan amount was to be given as cash in hand only to the extent of Rs.14,73,932/-. This financial assistance was to be repaid by way of an installments each  of Rs.24,399/- per month starting started from 04.08.2015 onwards. The complainant deposited all the installments in time.   The complainant visited the office of OP No.1 to deposit the entire remaining outstanding loan amount in one go prior to the deadline with the OPs as he wished to close his loan account No.1018158 at that stage itself but was shocked to see, he will have to deposit the prepayment charges to the tune of Rs.4.6% extra interest thereto and OP No.1 told him that loan was sanctioned against the firm, whereas neither complainant applied the same nor any firm’s documents were produced by him when OPs had sanctioned the said loan.   He requested the OPs vide letter dated 18.06.2016 in this regard, but, to no avail.  On 13.07.2016 he deposited entire loan amount for closing his loan account but OP No.1 forced him to deposit an excess prepayment charges @ 4.6% extra interest amount i.e. Rs.66050/-, which was deposited under protest.  As per NHB (ND)/DRS/Policy circular No.63/2014-15 dated 14.08.2014 and circular No.66/2014-15 dated 03.09.2014, bank were not authorized to levy of foreclosure/prepayment charges in respect of all loans advanced with floating rate in case of terms loans sanctioned to individual.  Faced with this situation, the complainant sent legal notice, but, the same was declined by OP No.2 vide reply dated 19.09.2016. Thus there being deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, and hence the complaint.

3.      O.P. while filing the written statement raised some preliminary objections about the complaint being false, frivolous and vexatious to the knowledge of the complainant, concealment of true facts, misconceived, groundless, lack of cause of action and time barred etc and requested to dismiss the complaint.

4.      On merits, it was alleged that complainant had approached the OPs for advancement of loan against property to the tune of Rs.15,12,345/- and after executing hypothecation cum guarantee agreement, the loan was disbursed to him. The complainant has agreed to repay the loan by way of 116 equated monthly installments of Rs.24,399/- payable by 4^th of every month.  As per agreement, the complainant voluntarily chose for prepayment charges in case of precloser of loan account. The complainant requested to preclose his loan account and paid Rs.66,050/- as forecloser charges and closed his loan account. The OPs have acted perfectly as per terms and conditions of the agreement itself.   The RBI circular as alleged by complainant were related to individual borrowers, where the rate of interest was charged on floating rate and therefore,
RBI circular were not applicable to the present loan agreement. Thus there was no deficiency in service on the part of the answering respondent.

5.      After hearing both the parties, the learned District Commission, Hisar allowed the complaint vide order dated 30.01.2018. Relief para is reproduced below:-

“Resultantly, this complaint is hereby allowed and direction the respondents to refund Rs.66050/- to the complainant. Complainant is also hereby awarded compensation of Rs.5000/- for his harassment and Rs.2000/- as litigation expenses etc. ”

6.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, O.Ps.-appellants have preferred this appeal.

7.      The arguments have been advanced by Mr.Vipul
Dharmani, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Mr.Dharampal Gill, learned counsel for the respondent.  With their kind assistance entire records of appeal as well as that of original record of the District Commission including whatever the evidence has been led on behalf of  the parties had also been properly perused and examined.

8.      Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that  the complainant approached the OPs for advancement of loan against property and accepting his request, a loan of Rs.15,12,345/- was sanctioned and after executing hypothecation cum guarantee agreement, the loan was disbursed to him. The counsel further argued that the complainant agreed to repay the loan in 116 equated monthly installments of Rs.24,399/- each to be tendered on 4^th of every month.  As per agreement, the complainant also agreed for bearing prepayment charges in case of precloser of loan account. The complainant requested to preclose his loan account and paid Rs.66,050/- as forecloser charges and closed his loan account as per law. The appellants have acted as per terms and conditions of the agreement.  The complainant on his own deposited the prepayment charges with the OP institution.   The plea of the complainant that RBI guidelines  violated by the OPs is not tenable because the RBI circular related to individual borrowers, where the rate of interest was charged on floating rate and therefore,
RBI circular were not applicable on the present loan agreement. The learned District Commission wrongly allowed the complaint of the complainant.

9.      Learned counsel for the complainant-respondent forcefully argued that the opposite parties forced him to pay the prepayment charges of Rs.66050/-, which they were not entitled to receive this excess amount. As per NHB (ND)/DRS/Policy circular No.63/2014-15 dated 14.08.2014 and circular No.66/2014-15 dated 03.09.2014  regarding not to levy the foreclosure/prepayment charges in respect of all floating rate interest from terms loans sanctioned to individual. The learned District Commission has rightly allowed the complaint of the complainant.

10.    It is not disputed that in the year 2015, the complainant approached the Opposite parties for taking loan of Rs.15,12,345/-, which was disbursed to him and was liable to repay the loan amount in 116 equated monthly installments of Rs.24,399/- each.  On 13.07.2016 he deposited entire loan amount for closing his loan account but OP No.1 compelled him to deposit an excess prepayment charges @ 4.6% extra interest amount i.e. Rs.66050/-, which of course was deposited under protest. Since as per NHB (ND)/DRS/Policy circular No.63/2014-15 dated 14.08.2014 and circular No.66/2014-15 dated 03.09.2014  regarding not to levy the foreclosure/prepayment charges in respect of all floating rate interest terms loans sanctioned to individuals.   As per agreement, the type of interest chargeable from complainant has been shown to be floating.  The opposite parties were not to charge the foreclosure charges/prepayment on all floating rate terms loans sanctioned to individual borrowers. The learned District Commission has righty allowed the complaint of the complainant.

11.    In view of the above, no case is made out for any interference in the impugned order passed by the learned District Commission. The appeal is devoid of any merits and accordingly, dismissed.

12.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainant-respondent against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal and revision, if any filed in this case.

13.              Applications pending, if any stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order.

14.              A copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.

15.              File be consigned to record room.

11th  November, 2022       Suresh Chander Kaushik            S. P. Sood                                                                Member                                             Judicial Member                            

 

S.K

(Pvt. Secy.)