STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Vijaya Bank, SCO No.201-203, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh through its Manager.

……Appellant/OP

V e r s u s

1.       M/s CIIS Educational Services Society, Village Jalvehra, P.O. Nabhipur, G.T. Road, National Highway 1, District Fatehgarh Sahib (PB) through its President Col. B.S. Sandhu.

2.       Col. B.S. Sandhu (Retd.), S/o Sh. Gulzar Singh R/o H. No. 292, Sector 10, Chandigarh.

3.       Devinder Sandhu s/o Col. B.S. Sandhu, R/o H. No. 292, Sector 10, Chandigarh.

4.       Parvinder Sandhu s/o Col. B.S. Sandhu, R/o H.No.292, Sector 10, Chandigarh.

              ....Respondents/complainants

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:    JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT.

                   MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.

S.  JAGROOP  SINGH   MAHAL, MEMBER.

Argued by:  Sh. Vikas Singh, Adv. for the appellant

                   Sh. Raman Walia, Adv. for the respondents

PER  NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

                   This appeal is directed against the order dated 1.11.2011, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum) vide which it allowed the complaint filed by the complainants/respondents and directed the Opposite Party/Appellant as under :-

“13.    From the detailed analysis of the entire case, it is our considered view that the present case has a lot of merit, substance and weight and it richly deserves acceptance. Therefore, we partly accept the complaint and decide the same in favour of the Complainant and against the OP. The OP is directed to refund Rs.2,34,962/-, illegally deducted by it, on account of pre-closure charges, in respect Loan Account No. 602708391000006, along with interest @9% per annum with effect from 27.12.2010 i.e. the date when it had wrongly deducted the said charges, within 30 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order, along with Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation, failing which, it shall pay the awarded amount, along with penal interest @12% per annum, till the amount is actually paid, besides paying the cost of litigation at Rs.5,000/-.”

2.                           The facts, in brief, are that the complainants had availed of loans from the Opposite Party-Bank, and had paid a substantial amount towards the repayment of the same for a number of years. However, they intended to clear the said loans, in one go. Therefore, in the month of December, 2010, they wrote a letter to the Opposite Party-Bank for closing the loan account Nos.602708391000003 and 602708391000007. Complainant No.2 also wrote a letter dated 11.1.2011, for the closure of home loan account No.602708391000006. The Opposite Party, on the request of the complainants, closed the loan accounts, aforesaid, after obtaining loan amount outstanding in one go from the complainants. The Opposite Party-Bank also issued ‘No Due Certificates’ to the complainants dated 8.2.2011 and 21.1.2011. It was stated that after the closure of loan accounts, surprisingly, the complainants received the statements of account showing therein, deduction of pre-colures charges, totaling Rs.5,21,784/-. It was further stated that at the time of taking loan, there was no such condition for payment of pre-closure charges on the loan amounts, if the same were paid pre-maturely. The complainants brought the issue, to the notice of the Opposite Party, but to no avail.  When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was filed.

3.                           In its written version, the Opposite Party, admitted the factual matrix of the case. However, it was stated that the term regarding the payment of pre-closure charges was clearly mentioned, in the sanction memo dated 1.2.2006, in respect of loan account No.602708391000003, and that the complainant was also informed regarding the same vide letter dated 1.2.2006. It was further stated that the complainants had also agreed to the term, regarding the payment of pre-closure charges in respect of loan of Rs.1 crore, vide letter dated 16.4.2009. It was further stated that the condition regarding payment of pre-closure charges was duly mentioned in Annexure R-2 to R-4, which were duly signed by the complainants. It was further stated that, thus , the complainants were well aware of the fact that they were liable to pay the pre-closure charges, in the event of payment of loan amounts prematurely.  The remaining averments were denied, being wrong.

4.                           The parties led evidence in support of their case. 

5.                           After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and on going through the evidence and record , the District Forum partly accepted the complaint, as stated above.

6.                           Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal has been filed by the appellant/Opposite Party.

7.                           We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case carefully. 

8.                           The dispute is only with regard to the one loan amount, in relation whereto, the District Forum held that the complainants were not liable to pay pre-closure charges, as there was no agreement between the parties, in that respect. The Counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the sanction memo (Annexure R-4) and the other conditions, annexed with it. According to him, as per condition No.15, the pre-payment charges/commitment charges as per the Head Office guidelines were to be collected. It may be stated here that neither the appellant/Opposite Party placed on record the Head Office guidelines in regard to pre-payment charges/commitment charges in relation to loan account No.602708391000006 nor there was any evidence, on the file, that the said guidelines were brought to the notice of the respondents/complainants and they agreed to the same, at the time of sanctioning /granting of loan to the extent of Rs.3.50 crores vide the aforesaid account.  So, Annexure R-6 placed, on record, by way of additional evidence, by the appellant, before the District Forum, wherein, the respondents agreed to all the terms and conditions, as stipulated in the sanction letter, is of no help to it (appellant).  In these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion, that the appellant, illegally charged the foreclosure/prepayment charges from the respondents in relation to loan account No.602708391000006. The order of the District Forum, being legal and valid, is liable to be upheld. 

9.                        No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the parties.

10.                       The order, passed by the District Forum, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.

11.                       For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, with no order, as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.

12.                    Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

13.                       The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion

Pronounced.

20.03.2012

Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

[NEENA SANDHU]

MEMBER

cmg