Delhi

StateCommission

FA/832/2013

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

JASBIR KAUR & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

02 Dec 2016

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

 

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

Date of Decision :02.12.2016

First Appeal No. 832/2013

 

(Arising out of the order dated 1.7.2013 passed in Complaint Case No.592/07 passed by the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum-VI, New Delh District.)

 

In the matter of

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD.

Having its Office at :

17^th floor, Ambadeep Building

14, Kasturba Gandhi Marg,

New Delhi-110 001

……Appellant

 

Versus

1. Smt. Jasbir Kaur

W/o shri Bhag Singh Gambhir

R-12, Greater Kailash, Part-1

New Dellhi.

2. Sh. Bhag Singh Gambhir

S/o Late Sh. Ranjodh Singh

R-12, Greater Kailash, Part-1

New Dellhi.

 

…Respondent/OP

 

 

CORAM

Justice Veena Birbal, President

Salma Noor, Member

1.         Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

2.         To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

 

 

 

Justice Veena Birbal, President

1.          This is an appeal under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act (in short, ‘the Act’) wherein challenge is made to order dated 1.7.13 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (in short, ‘the District Forum’), New Delhi District in CC No. 592/07 whereby the complaint of the complainant is allowed and the appellant/OP is directed as under:-

            “But in the first place OP is deficient in charging higher interest than agreed          and not re-scheduling initially at correct rates. Now, in any case when the       matter is already settled by one time payment, we impose punitive             compensation of Rs.50,000/- on OP, inclusive of litigation charges for the       deficiencies. OP will also update the record of complainant on CIBIL by                 showing payment of loan by one time settlement. The balance of          Rs.2,87,000/- against complaianant is held as non-payable.”

 

2. Briefly the facts relevant for disposal of the complaint are as under:-

            The respondent herein was the complainant before the District Forum. A complaint under section 12 of the Act was filed by him stating therein that he alongwith his wife i.e. respondent No. 2/complainant No. 2 had taken a loan from the appellant/OP. It was alleged that at the time of taking the loan, the representative of the appellant/OP had given a lucrative offer and had stated that the rate of interest on the said loan was 12% p.a on reducing balance basis. On the said assurance the loan was taken and the relevant documents were submitted. A loan amount of Rs,7,42,500/- (after deducting Rs.7,500/-) towards the process fees) was disbursed to the respondents/complainants. The loan amount was to be repaid in 30 installments of Rs.30,867/- each commencing from 10.11.05. The respondents/complainants were assured that the EMIs were calculated at interest rate of 12% p.a. on reducing balance basis. It was alleged that the consequently when the respondents/complainants received the EMI chart and repayment schedule, the rate of interest was not mentioned in the same. On enquiry it was told that the rate of interest being charged was approximately around 17.5% p.a. on reducing basis. It was alleged that the respondents/complainants were paying higher rate of interest to the appellant/OP for the loan amount than what was told to them.  Despite various visits the rate of interest was not reduced. It was alleged that on 28.6.06, the appellant/OP offered to settle the outstanding loan amount if the respondents/complainants were ready to pay Rs.5,33,931/- i.e. the principle amount outstanding in a single installment on or before 30.6.06. The said offer was not acceptable to the respondents/complainants. Accordingly it was intimated to the appellant/OP. Thereafter, respondents/complainants wrote various letters for the reduction in the rate of interest but appellant/OP did not agree. It was alleged that on 11.4.07, one Mr. Paras and one Mr. Nanda, officials of the appellant/OP bank informed the respondents/complainants that total outstanding of the principal amount in the loan account was Rs.2,87,000/- and the said loan account could be  closed if the respondents/complainants clear the payment in three months time. The respondents/ complainants requested for four months time for the clearance which was not acceptable to the aforesaid officials of the appellant/OP. The respondents/complainants were harassed by the appellant/OP. In order to finish the matter, respondents/complainants agreed to the said offer and wrote a letter dated 11.4.07 in this regard. The respondents/complainants again reiterated their acceptance of settlement vide communication dated 13.4.07. Thereupon issued a cheque dated 27.4.07 for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-  on account of first installment. The said cheque was encashed by appellant/OP on 5.5.07. It was alleged that on checking the account statement, respondents/complainants were shocked and surprised to see that apart from getting Rs.1,00,000/-, the  appellant/OP had withdrawn another EMI of Rs.30,867/- from their bank account. The respondents/complainants further made cash payment of Rs.14,500/- and Rs.15,000 on 31.3.07. It was alleged that respondents/complainants had paid in all Rs.5,92,904/- to the appellant/OP bank out of loan amount sanctioned.  It was alleged that the respondents/complainants were ready to make payment of balance alleged settlement amount after deducting payment already made but the appellant/OP demanded exorbitant amount. It was allelged that the respondent/complainants also visited the office of the appellant/OP bank in June, 2007 for making further payments towards alleged compromise amount but they refused. It was alleged that the appellant/OP were harassing the respondents/complainants and as such the respondents/complainants filed a complaint before the District Forum for acceptance of the amount towards alleged settlement and to pay Rs.2,00,000/- towards mental agony.

3.          The complaint was opposed by the appellant/OP by filing written statement wherein it was stated  that there was no deficiency in service on the part of appellant/OP. It was stated that the appellant/OP had sanctioned loan for a sum of Rs.7,50,000/- to the respondents/complainants and accordingly agreement bearing No.789500 dated 29.10.05 was entered between the parties. It was alleged that the loan was repayable by the respondents/complaints with interest @ 9.39% p.a.. The loan was repayable by way of 30 equal installments of Rs.30,867/-.  It was alleged that the huge loan amount was given. The appellant/OP offered the respondents/complainants to reschedule the loan @15% vide their letter on record. However, the respondents/ complainants did not come forward. Again the rescheduling of loan was offered by reducing interest @ 14% p.a. but the respondents/complainants did not come forward. It was alleged that instead of rescheduling the respondents/complainants approached for settlement of the loan amount and finally for a total sum of Rs.5,33,391/-  settlement of loan amount was arrived. The appellant/OP gave the acceptance for closer of loan vide letter dated 28.6.06. However, the payments were to be paid as per schedule attached with the letter. The respondents/complainants did not come forward to make the payment. The respondents/complainants also defaulted in making the EMIs. It was alleged that the appellant/OP never agreed to settle the loan account as had been alleged by the respondent/complainant.
4.          Respondent/complainant filed rejoinder reiterating the facts stated in the complaint. Both the parties filed their evidence by way of affidavits.
5.          After hearing the parties, the Ld. District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the OP to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/-  as punitive compensation and also directed the appellant/OP to update the record of respondents/complainants on CIBIL by showing payment of loan by one time settlement. Ld. District Forum also held that the balance of Rs.2,87,000/- against respondents/complainants as non-payable.
6.          Aggrieved with the order present appeal filed.
7.          Counsel for the appellant/OP has submitted that Ld. District Forum has disposed of the complaint by non  speaking order. It is stated that the facts of the case are wrongly discussed while deciding the complaint case. It is stated that even the order passed by the District Forum is beyond the prayer made by the respondents/complainants. It is submitted that in the complaint, the respondent/complainant have stated that they are liable to pay balance payment towards alleged settlement. Despite that the District Forum is holding the balance of alleged settlement as non payable.
8.          On the other hand Ld. Counsel for the respondents/complainants has argued that the Ld. District  Forum has passed the order after considering the material on record. There is no illegality in the impugned order.
9.          We have heard the Counsel of the parties and perused the material on record. While going through the impugned order it is noticed that the material facts have been wrongly recorded therein. It is the case of the respondents/complainants that the respondents/complainants never agreed  to settle the Loan Account  at Rs.5,33,397/- whereas in  the impugned order it is stated that the respondents/complainants had offered as onetime settlement which was agreed by paying total of outstanding of Rs.5,33,397/- in installments. It is the case of the respondents/complainants that they never agreed for settlement by paying a total outstanding of Rs.5,33,397/- whereas the Ld. District Forum has disposed of the complaint by taking  aforesaid fact. The Ld. District Forum has also held that balance of Rs.2,87,000/- against respondents/complainants as non-payable. It is also not clear as to how the aforesaid finding is given. The respondents/complainants are admitting in the complaint case that they have to make balance payment after adjusting the payment made towards alleged settlement. Despite that the District Forum is holding that no amount is payable.  The appellant/OP has denied the aforesaid alleged settlement. The impugned order is also a non speaking order.  Ld. District Forum has held that high rate of interest is charged from respondents/complainants. However, no reasons/documents are discussed for arriving at such a finding. It is not clear as on what basis directions have been given to appellant/OP to update the record of CIBIL by showing payment of loan by one time settlement.
10.          In view of the above discussions, we accept this appeal and set aside the impugned order dated 1.7.13 and remand  back the matter to the Ld. District Forum for deciding it afresh after hearing both the parties.
11.          Let the parties appear before the Ld. District Forum on 13.2.2017. Thereafter, the District Forum shall fix up the case for final hearing and proceed further in the matter in accordance with the law.
12.          Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
13.          A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the District Forum – VI, New Delhi District for information alongwith record of the complaint case..

            File be consigned to record room.

(Justice Veena Birbal)

President

                                                              

 

(Salma Noor)

Member