BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

DATED 24^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2023

ORDER

SMT.M.SHOBHA, PRESIDENT

1. The complaint has been filed under Section 35 of C.P.Act (hereinafter referred as an Act) against the OP for the following reliefs against the OP:-

(a) To direct the OP an amount of Rs.1,33,141/- to the complainant along with interest @ 18% from 16.01.2023 till the settlement of the said amount, which was collected in the guise of foreclosure charges;

(b) To order OP to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards deficiency in service.

(c) To order the OP to pay Rs.10,00,000/- towards mental agony and hardship.

(d) Grant such other relief/s as this Hon’ble Forum deem just and proper.

2. The case set up by the complainant in brief is as under:-

It is the case of the complainant that during September 2021 he has availed car loan of Rs.29,00,000/- from the OP vide loan agreement No.UCR051406495277 dated 11.09.2021.  At the time of sanctioning the said loan the OP has orally informed the complainant that no foreclosure charges would be levied on the said loan if the same is repaid in full within 24 months.  The complainant has requested the OP to provide the said information in writing and the OP vide its email dated 08.09.2021 has sent the loan approval details and confirmation to the complainant about the said car loan.  The said email contained information relating to foreclosure charges which stated foreclosure charges waiver of 50% after 24 months and the OP has not mentioned anything about the foreclosure charges if the said loan is foreclosed within 24 months.

3. It is further case of the complainant that on 09.09.2021 one of the sale executive of the OP Sri.Deepak had sent the details of the said loan through whatsapp message and sought confirmation of the complainant. The said message contained the information relating to foreclosure charges which stated “Foreclosure charges after 24 months 2.5% of outstanding amount”  the complainant has confirmed the same through whatsapp message.

4. It is further case of the complainant that he has been always regular in payment of EMIs towards the said loan. During the month of January 2023 the complainant has decided to foreclose the said loan and approached the OP with a request to foreclose the same. The OP has issued a foreclosure letter dated 16.01.2023 claiming an amount of Rs.23,99,391/- as total amount payable for foreclosing the said loan.

5. It is further case of the complainant that he has noticed that the OP has charged an extra amount of Rs.1,33,141/- i.e., 1,12,831/- towards foreclosure charges and Rs.20,310/- towards GST on foreclosure charges.  The complainant has immediately informed the OP staff that no foreclosure charges was applicable to the said car loan in case the loan is foreclosed within 24 months.  However the OP staff informed the complainant that the foreclosure amount is automatically calculated by the system and they don’t have any power to change it and that the complainant has to pay the foreclosure charges as per the letter dated 16.01.2023. The complainant having no other choice has paid an amount of Rs.23,99,391/- through auto debit. The OP has issued original acknowledgement for having received the amount.  After that the complainant has approached the OP with written complaint on 20.01.2023 but the Ops refused to accept the complaint.  Hence he has sent the complaint through RPAD and it was delivered. Inspite of receipt of the said complaint, the OP neither replied nor complied the demands of the complainant. Hence the complainant has filed this complaint.

6. In response to the notice, OP appears and files version. It is the case of the OP that the complaint is not at all maintainable and there is no cause of action nor has any valid cause which is evident against this OP. The complainant has failed to make out a case of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice against this OP. The complainant has not provided any valid or legal reason for which he is eligible for any relief whatsoever.  The complainant having agreed to the terms now he is trying to have his own interpretation about the foreclosure charges. The OP has also relied on the decisions of the Hon’ble apex court stating that the court cannot lose sight of the fact that the bank is trustee of public funds. It cannot compromise the public interest for benefiting private individuals. This Consumer Commission has no jurisdiction and the complaint is not maintainable.

7. It is the specific contention taken by the OP that the complainant was aware of the charges to be levied. The loan was sanctioned and disbursed only after the complainant agreed to the terms of the sanction and loan cum hypothecation agreement. However the complainant has sought for waiver of the pre closure charges. This OP has agreed and informed the complainant that the 50% of the pre -closure charges would be waived after 24 months from the date of loan. This meant the foreclosure charges would apply during the entire tenure if the loan is foreclosed. However as a service gesture the foreclosure charges would be waived to an extent of 50% after 24 months.

8. It is further case of the OP that the complainant herein foreclosed the loan within two years of sanction and hence this OP bank had to levy foreclosure charges. The contention taken by the complainant that since this OP bank had agreed to waive 50% of foreclosure charges after two years and since he has pre-closed within two years, the OP bank should not levy the charges.  The complainant either has misunderstood the terms or he is deliberately misinterpreting it.  The complainant has agreed to pay the pre-closure charges. However as a service gesture this OP had agreed to waive 50% after two years that means the charges is to be paid for first two years if pre closured and also 50% charges after two years.  This OP has acted as per the terms of the loan agreement and none of its action amounts to deficiency in service and the complainant has failed to show deficiency in service on the part of this OP as such the complaint deserves to be dismissed with cost. Hence OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

9. The complainant has filed his affidavit evidence and relies on 09 documents.  Affidavit evidence of official of OP has been filed and OP relies on 03 documents.

10. Heard the arguments of advocate for the both the parties.   Perused the written arguments filed by both the parties.

11. The following points arise for our consideration as are:-

1. Whether the complainant proves deficiency of service on the part of OP?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to relief mentioned in the complaint?
3. What order?

12. Our answers to the above points are as under:

Point No.1:  In the Negative

Point No.2: In the Negative

Point No.3: As per final orders

REASONS

13. Point No.1 AND 2: These two points are inter related and hence they have taken for common discussion.  We have perused the allegations made in the complaint, version, evidence, written arguments and documents filed by both the parties.

14. The complainant has reiterated all the allegations made in the complaint. There is no dispute between the parties about the car loan borrowed by the complainant of Rs.29,00,000/- and agreed to clear the loan amount.

15. The only grievance of the complainant is that, as per the oral information of the OP at the time of sanctioning of the loan no foreclosure charges would be levied on the said loan if the loan is repaid in full within 24 months. In order to confirm this information the complainant has relied on the email sent by the OP dated 08.09.2021 as Ex.P2.  As per Ex.P2 the foreclosure charges waiver of 50% after 24 months. The OP has not mentioned anything about the foreclosure charges if the said loan is foreclosed within 24 months.

16. The complainant further relied on the email sent by the OP by their sales executive Deepak dated 09.09.2021 i.e., Ex.P3. The message contending the information relating to foreclosure charges which stated foreclosure charges after 24 months 2.5% of outstanding amount.

17. It is the main contention taken by the complainant that he has foreclosed the loan amount within 24 months and hence he is not at all liable to pay any foreclosure charges as per the document No.2 and 3. Inspite of that the OP has collected the foreclosure charges of Rs.1,12,831/- and also Rs.20,310/- towards GST on foreclosure charges.  Inspite of his request the OP has not turned up to return the amount.

18. On the other hand, the contention taken by the OP is that they have disbursed the loan only after the complainant agreed to the terms of sanction and loan hypothecation agreement as Ex.R.1.  The complainant is very much aware of the charges of to be levied.  When the complainant has sought for waiver of the pre-closure charges, this OP has agreed and informed the complainant that 50% of pre-closure charges would be waived after 24 months from the date of loan. This means the foreclosure would apply during the entire tenure if the loan is foreclosed however as a service gesture the foreclosure charges would be waived to an extent of 50% after 24 months.  The complainant has misunderstood the terms or is deliberately interpreting that even though he has agreed to pay the pre-closure charges. This OP has also agreed to waiver of 50% of the amount after two years, that means the charges is to be paid for first two years if pre-closed and also 50% charges after two years. This OP has acted as per the terms of the agreement and none of its actions amounts to deficiency in service.

19. In support of their contention the senior manager of the OP bank has filed his affidavit evidence and relied on three documents.  Ex.R1 is the power home sanction letter and Ex.R2 is the power drive car loan documentation.  It is clearly stated in Ex.R2 i.e., the foreclosure charges in page 2 that 5% of principle outstanding + GST. There is also clearly written that after 24 months 2.5%.
20. The specific explanation offered by the OP is that the complainant has agreed to pay the foreclosure charges as per the terms and conditions in the loan agreement and he has to pay 5% of principle outstanding + GST and it amounts to Rs.1,12,831/- towards foreclosure charges and Rs.20,310/- towards GST on foreclosure charges.  As a service gesture they have agreed to waive of only 50% of the pre-closure charges if the loan is foreclosed after 24 months from the date of loan. That means the foreclosure charges would apply during the entire tenure if the loan is foreclosed and 50% will be waived of only after 24 months.

21. According to the complainant, the OP is not entitled to collect the foreclosure charges as he has cleared the loan within 24 months. As per Ex.R2 they have clearly mentioned that they will collect the foreclosure charges at the rate of 2.5% after 24 months.

22. As per the Ex.R2 and also the emails sent by the OP as Ex.P2 and P3, the OP have not at all stated that they will waive of the  entire foreclosure charges if the loan is cleared within 24 months. They have only given the option that the foreclosure charges will be waived up to 50% if the loan is paid after 24 months. The complainant has misunderstood the terms and has claimed the relief that he is entitled for full waiver of foreclosure charges and the OP is not entitle to collect the foreclosure charges as he has cleared the loan within 24 months. The claim made by the complainant is not at all sustainable as there is no such terms in the loan agreement.  The OP have collected the charges as per the terms and conditions of the loan agreement.  Therefore the complainant has failed to prove the deficiency of service and also unfair trade practice on the part of the OP.  Hence we answer point No.1 and point No.2 in the Negative.

23. Point No.3:- In view the discussion referred above we proceed to pass the following;

O R D E R

1. The complaint is Dismissed. No costs.
2. Furnish the copy of this order and return the extra pleadings and documents to the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Commission on this 24^TH day of AUGUST, 2023)

Documents produced by the Complainant-P.W.1 are as follows:

Documents produced by the representative of opposite party – R.W.1;