Delhi

New Delhi

CC/913/2012

Niren Chaudhary & Anr. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd. & Anr. - Opp.Party(s)

24 Nov 2015

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTT. NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR,

VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.CC/913/12                                      Dated:

In the matter of:

1. Niren Chaudhary,
2. Aditi Chaudhary,

Both R/o Flat no.B-1-05-501,

The World Spa (complex),

Fifth floor, Sector 30-41, Gurgaon-122001

 

……..COMPLAINANT

       

VERSUS

 

1. The Honkong and Shanghai,

Banking Corporation Ltd.,

Ambal House, 610, Anna Salai,

Chennai-600006

Also at:

Main Branch, 25, Birla Tower,

Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place,

New Delhi-01

 

2. ICICI Bank Ltd.,

Home Finance Department,

S-26, 1^st Floor, Veera Towers,

Green Park Extension, New Delhi        

 

                                         ……. OPPOSITE PARTIES

                                                 

 

 

 

ORDER

President: C.K Chaturvedi

               

The upshot of the whole deficiency highlighted in the complaint is regarding a cheque of Rs.1,15,74,760/- dated 01.09.10, which were sent to clearing by OP1 bank on 15.10.10 and the amount was disbursed on 16.10.10 to complainant. This cheque was part of a loan of Rs.2 Crore 60 lakhs, taken by complainant from OP. The remaining part of Rs.1,44,25,240/- is not in issue.

The case of the complainant is that OP kept this cheque of Rs.1,15,74,760/- with itself till 15.10.10, and for purpose of charging interest on loan, it is treating the date of disbursal as 01.09.10, though actually it sent it to bank on 15.10.10. The bank OP, in reply relies on fine print clause of the loan agreement to this effort, that date of cheque will be deemed to be date of disbursal of loan.

We have considered the rival submissions and terms of contract. We are unable to agree with OP in this regard. The date of disbursal without actual disbursal or payment cannot be taken as ‘deemed date’ so as to charge a consumer interest on undisbursed loan. The clause is bad in law and in bad faith, and against public policy and in violation of S.23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, and thus void. The law prohibits unfair trade practice and this clause is a clear example of unfair trade practice, such agreement in fine prints without drawing attention to such clauses first are not enforceable.

In our view, OP is guilty of deficiency and unfair trade practice in charging interest on loan on Rs.1,15,74,760/- wef. 01.09.10 till 15.10.10. We direct OP to reverse or return the interest charged and pay equal interest to complainant as loss to him @9% p.a for 1.5 months and pay Rs.50,000/- for harassment and litigation expenses.

The order shall be complied with within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the order; otherwise action can be taken against OP under Section 25 / 27 of the Consumer Protection Act.

File be consigned to record room.

Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost.

 

        Pronounced in open Court on 24.11.2015.

 

 

(C.K.CHATURVEDI)

PRESIDENT

 

 

 (RITU GARODIA)

MEMBER