DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.

Case No. 847/06

1.       Basudev Girraj Sharma

          S/o Sh. Girraj Prasad

          R/o 23, Ashoka Enclave Main, Faridabad.

2.       Kusum Sharma

          W/o Sh. Basudev Girraj Sharma

          R/o 23, Ashoka Enclave Main, Faridabad.           ….Complainant

Versus

Standard Chartered Bank

Mortgages – North

17, Parliament Street

New Delhi – 110001                                                     ...Opposite Party

                                                          Date of Institution          : 22.12.06                                                             Date of Order        : 10.05.16

Coram:

Sh. N.K. Goel, President

Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member

O R D E R

Admitted facts are that the complainants look loan of Rs. 20 lacs @ 14% p.a. vide application dated 14.8.2004 from the OP.  The complainants paid the EMI of Rs. 37,481 for nearly two years in accordance with the terms and conditions of the loan.  The complainants opted for lumpsum payment of the remaining outstanding amount of loan and the OP charged pre-payment fee @ 4.5%.

The dispute between the parties is that the case of the complainants is that the pre-payment fee was @ 2% p.a. of the outstanding loan but the OP charged pre-payment fee @ 4.5% in contravention of the terms and conditions of the loan.

Common reliance has been placed on the closure of the loan account No. 43415008 issued by the OP vide Pre Term Quote dated 26.9.2006.

The case of the OP is that in pursuance  of the said Pre Term Quote dated 26.9.2006, OP was entitled to pre-payment fee @ 4.5% p.a.

Parties have filed their respective affidavits.

Written arguments have been filed.

No arguments have been advanced on behalf of the parties.

We have gone through the file very carefully.

Copy of Pre Term Quote dated 26.9.2006 is Annexure – P3 (Ex. CWP/3).  As per the said document, the outstanding loan was to be paid @ 4.5%.   Therefore, in view of the said document, the OP was justified in charging pre-payment fee @ 4.5%.

In view of the above discussion, we hold that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Complaint is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.

     Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations.  Thereafter file be consigned to record room.

Announced on 10.05.16.

(NAINA BAKSHI)                                                                                                                                                               (N.K. GOEL)  MEMBER                                                                                                                                                                             PRESIDENT   

Case No. 847/06

10.5.2016

Present –   None.

          Vide our separate order of even date pronounced, the complaint is dismissed.  Let the file be consigned to record room.

(NAINA BAKSHI)                                                                                                                                                               (N.K. GOEL)  MEMBER                                                                                                                                                                             PRESIDENT