Per Justice Sham Sunder , President This appeal is directed against the order dated 12.5.2011, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as the District Forum only), vide which it dismissed the complaint of the complainant(now appellant). 2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant alongwith his son and daughter-in-law, applied for loan against property, with the OP (now respondent). The loan was sanctioned on 7.1.2009, after the completion of formalities. Account bearing No. 70005053685 was also opened in favour of the complainant, his son and daughter-in-law. Subsequently, due to the higher rate of interest, being charged by the OP, the complainant decided not to continue with the loan sanctioned by it (OP). He applied for pre-closing his account with the OP. The OP agreed to the request of the complainant. It was stated that in order to pre-close the account, the OP furnished the detail of amount due, vide letter dated 9.9.2010 annexure C-3, which included the pre-payment charges @4.41%, to which the complainant objected. It was further stated that the complainant deposited full and final amount of Rs.59,92,127.16 including the prepayment charges of Rs. 2,52,574.53/- , under protest, in order to close the account. The complainant, thereafter, lodged protest with the bank, on telephone, but no response was received. Ultimately, a legal notice, annexure C5, was served upon the OP, but to no avail. It was stated that the aforesaid act of the OP, in obtaining pre-payment charges of Rs.2,52,574.53, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, and indulgence into unfair trade practice. 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 to be called as the Act only) was filed by him, for the refund of pre-payment charges alongwith compensation. 3. The OP, in its reply, admitted that the complainant, his son, and daughter in law applied for loan against property, which after the completion of formalities, was sanctioned by it(OP). It was stated that the complainant accepted all the terms and conditions of the sanction letter R-1 and on receipt of his acceptance , the loan was disbursed. It was further stated that the OP, on the request of the complainant, issued pre termination quotation letter dated 9.9.2010. The interest rate of loan account was revised vide letter dated 25.8.2010. It was denied that the OP charged unreasonable amount for closing the loan account. It was further stated that the prepayment charges were charged, as per the terms and conditions of the sanction letter, which were duly accepted by the complainant, at the time of availing the loan from the OP. It was denied that the complainant deposited prepayment amount under protest. It was further stated that a legal notice was received from the complainant, which was duly replied to. It was denied that the OP was deficient, in rendering service, or indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining allegations, 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 of the case, the District Forum, dismissed the complaint. 6. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal was filed, by the appellant/complainant. 7. We have heard the Counsel for the parties , and have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully. 8. The Counsel for the appellant, submitted that, no doubt, loan was obtained by the complainant alongwith his son and daughter-in-law from the OP bank. He further submitted that since the rate of interest being charged by the OP, was on the higher side, he decided to pre-close the loan. He further submitted that there was no agreement, between the parties, that, in case, the loan was pre-closed, pre-payment charges shall be charged by the OP bank. He further submitted that since there was no agreement, between the parties, for charging the pre-payment charges, in case of prepayment of loan, the OP by charging the same, was deficient, in rendering service, and also indulged into unfair trade practice. He further submitted that since the complainant wanted to pre-close the loan, and obtain the title deed of the property, there was no option with him than to pay the pre-payment charges, under protest. He further submitted that the complainant was, thus, entitled to the refund of pre-payment charges illegally obtained by the OP, as also the compensation. It was further submitted that the District Forum wrongly interpreted R-1, the letter issued by the OP. It was further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being illegal, is liable to be set aside. 9. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondent, submitted that, letter R-1 was sent to the complainant, and other loanees and they were asked that, in case, they accepted the terms and conditions mentioned therein and overleaf, they should sign the same. It was further submitted that after signing the terms and conditions, contained in R1, and other documents, the loan was sanctioned, in favour of the complainant, his son and daughter-in- law. He further submitted that the bank was entitled to pre-payment charges, as per the agreement, between the parties, when the complainant applied for the prepayment of loan. It was further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being legal and valid, is liable to be upheld. 10. After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the parties, in our considered opinion, the appeal is liable to be accepted, for the reasons, to be recorded, hereinafter. There is, no dispute, between the parties that the complainant, his son and daughter-in-law applied for the grant of loan against property. Undisputedly, the loan was sanctioned, in favour of the complainant, his son and daughter-in-law, by the OP bank, after they completed the formalities. Since, according to the complainant, the rate of interest, being charged by the OP, on the loan amount, was on the higher side, he decided to pre-pay the same. On the request of the complainant for prepayment of loan, annexure C3 letter was sent by the bank. This letter is only signed by the authorized agent of the OP bank. It does not bear the signatures of the complainant, his son and daughter-in-law. R1 is the document, which was sent by the OP bank to the complainant, his son and daughter-in-law jointly. In this document, there is no mention of payment of pre-payment charges. At the bottom of this document, a note was appended as under ; “Please sign this letter as a token of your acceptance of the terms and conditions mentioned above and overleaf and give us a signed copy of the letter. Please feel free to call us at our phone banking help line 39404444 for any clarification or assistance” 11. This letter was signed by the complainant, his son and daughter-in-law. There is nothing, in this letter, regarding the prepayment charges. Even, on the overleaf of this document, no conditions are mentioned that, in case, the complainant wanted to pre-close the loan, he was required to pay prepayment charges. At page No.25 of the District Forum file, there is a document, containing the terms and conditions. This document is not signed by the complainant, his son and daughter-in-law. Even this document is not signed by any official of the bank. This is a unilateral document of the bank, and is not binding on the complainant. No doubt, as per clause-10 of this document, if loanee wanted to pre-close the entire loan, he was required to pay pre-closure charges @ 2.5%, on the principal amount outstanding at the time of pre-closure. Had these terms and conditions, been signed by the complainant, his son and daughter-in-law, loanees, it would have been said that the same were binding upon them. No help, therefore, can be drawn by the OP bank, from these terms and conditions, the same being unilateral. Under these circumstances, there was no agreement, between the parties, that in case of pre-closure of loan, loanees shall be liable to pay the pre-closure charges. The bank, therefore, could not charge the prepayment charges/foreclosure charges, at the time, the loan was prepaid by the complainant his son and daughter-in-law. The OP bank, thus, indulged into unfair trade practice, in charging prepayment charges in the sum of Rs.2,52,574.53. The District Forum gravely erred, in not properly interpreting R1. The complaint should have been allowed, but the District Forum, illegally dismissed the same. The order of the District Forum, being illegal, is liable to be set aside and the complainant is entitled to the refund of amount of Rs.2,52,574.53 illegally charged, from him, as pre-closure/pre-payment charges, by the OP. 12. The next question, that arises for consideration, is, as to whether, the complainant is entitled to compensation for physical harassment mental agony, and financial loss caused to him, on account of charging from him prepayment charges illegally, by the OP. Certainly the complainant, suffered physical harassment, mental agony, and financial loss, on account of the aforesaid illegal act of the OP bank. It is settled principle of law that the compensation should be fair and reasonable. In our considered opinion, keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, if the amount of Rs.25,000/- is granted as compensation to the complainant, for the aforesaid illegal act of the OP, that would meet the ends of justice. 13. The order of the District Forum, being illegal and perverse, is liable to be set aside. 14. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is accepted, with costs, quantified at Rs.5000/-. The impugned order is set aside. The OP is directed to refund the amount of Rs.2,52,574.53, illegally charged/obtained by it, from the complainant, on account of prepayment charges. The respondent/OP is further directed to pay compensation in the sum of Rs.25,000/- for physical harassment, mental agony and financial loss caused to the complainant, on account of its aforesaid illegal act. 15. The aforesaid order shall be complied with, by the respondent/OP within 30 days, from the date of receipt of a copy of the same, failing which, it shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% pa. on the aforesaid payable amount, from the date of filing the complaint, till realization. 16. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. 17. The file be consigned to Record Room.
| | HON'BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT | HON'BLE MR. JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER | |
