BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Krishan Lal Juneja S/o Sh. Sant Ram Juneja, aged 72 years r/o H. No. 285, Sector 33-A, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant(s)….

                           V E R S U S

Standard Chartered Bank, SCO No. 137-38, Sector 9, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager.    

                                  ……Opposite Party(s)……..

CORAM:   SH.P.D.GOEL, PRESIDENT

                                SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL, MEMBER

              DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA, MEMBER

Argued by:  Sh. Ajit Singh, counsel for complainant.

              Sh. Varun Verma, counsel for OP.

PER DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA, MEMBER 

             Concisely put, the complainant along with his son and daughter-in-law applied for loan against property with the OP and on completion of formalities, the same was sanctioned on 7.1.2009. An account having No. 70005053685 was also opened. (Annexure C-1)   Subsequently, due to high rate of interest, the complainant decided not to continue with the loan sanctioned by OP and applied for closer of account, which the OP agreed.  Letter dated 25.8.2010 showing transaction on rate of interest is annexed as Annexure C-2. It has been averred that in order to pre-closure of account OP furnished   detail amount vide letter dated 9.9.2010 (Annexure C-3) as closure/foreclosure charges, which the complainant objected. However, the complainant under protest deposited full and final amount with the foreclosure charges of Rs. 2,52,574.53/-  totaling to Rs.59,92,127.16 in order to close the account. The statement of closing  balance is annexed at Annexure C-4. Further averment of the complainant is that a complaint was lodged with bank of OP telephonically but no reply was given. Ultimately, a legal notice was served upon the OP  vide Annexure C-5. Hence this complaint alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OP amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice

2.             The OP in its written reply admitted that complainant took loan against property, which was after completion of formalities sanctioned by the OP.  Further the OP contended that the complainant accepted all the terms and conditions of the sanctioned letter (Annexure R-1) and only on receiving acceptance from the complainant loan was disbursed. Admittedly, the OP on the request of complainant issued Pre Termination Quotation letter dated 9.9.2010 and also  interest rate of loan account was revised vide letter dated 25.8.2010. It has been vehemently denied that the OP charged unreasonable amount for closing the loan account. It has been pleaded that prepayment was charged as per the terms and conditions of the sanctioned letter which was duly accepted by the complainant at the time of availing loan from the answering OP. It has also been denied that the complainant deposited closure amount under protest as he was well aware regarding prepayment charges, while signing the loan agreement with the OP. It has been pleaded the legal notice of the complainant was duly replied (Anexure R-2). The OP further pleaded that vide sanction letter, it has been  communicated that “if the customer pre-closes, the entire loan outstanding amount, he shall pay to the bank a pre-closure fee at the rate of 4% ad volorem on the principal outstanding amount for first 3 years from the date of disbursal”  (Annexure R-1). Denying all the material allegations of the complainant, the OP pleaded that there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on  its part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

3.     The Parties led evidence in support their contentions.

4.     We have heard the Learned Counsel for parties and have also perused the record. 

5.     The contention of the complainant in this complaint is that the OP sanctioned loan against property on 7.1.2009 under Home Saver Loan Scheme after opening an account No. 70005053685. The OP was charging higher rate of interest in   comparison of other banks, so the complainant opted not to continue with the facility of sanctioned loan by the OP. He applied for closure of account for which the OP agreed. The OP furnished   detail amount vide letter dated 9.9.2010 (Annexure C-3) in which closure/foreclosure charges were fixed, the complainant objected for the same as those were huge and unreasonable.  But the OP refused to accede to the request of the complainant.  The complainant having no option but to pay the same under protest and made full and final payment as demanded by the OP, along with foreclosure charges of Rs. 2,52,574.53/-  totaling to Rs.59,92,127.16 in order to close the account,  the closing  balance statement was issued by the OP bank (Annexure C-4). Afterwards the complainant lodged a complaint with the OP bank telephonically.

6.             On the other hand, the OP stated that the said loan was sanctioned after communicating the terms and conditions to the complainant and subsequently receiving the acceptance from the complainant (Annexure R-1).  The OP further stated that the interest rate on the loan of the complainant was revised which was duly communicated to him vide letter dated 25.8.2010. Thus it is unwarranted on the part of the complainant that the OPs have charged illegally for the closure of the loan account. Above all, the OP denied that the complainant has deposited the amount for closure of loan account under protest, whereas, he was well known to the foreclosure/prepayment charges as the same was duly accepted by him while signing the loan agreement with the OP.  Pre Termination Quotation letter dated 9.9.2010 was issued on the request of the complainant. Thus, the OP denied having overcharged from the complainant for closure of loan account as he was well aware to the terms and conditions of the bank.

7.     In view of the foregoing discussion, it is observed that the complainant failed to place on record any convincing documentary evidence that he has deposited the foreclosure charges under protest. Moreover, there is a loan agreement between the complainant and the OP (Annexure R-1), which has been duly signed and executed by both the parties. Thus, it is a bilateral contract between them. A letter of agreement dated 26.12.2008  signed  and executed by both the parties has been placed on file (Annexure R-1), in which it has been clearly mentioned, ‘ 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 this letter. It shows that the complainant must have gone through the terms and conditions of the OP bank, prior to signing/executing of agreement. Further, as per clause 10 of the terms and conditions, it has been mentioned that, ‘if you preclose the entire loan outstanding amount, you shall pay to the bank a pre-closure fee at the rate of 4% ad volorem on the principal outstanding amount for the first 3 years from the date of final disbursal. In case you wish to preclose after three years, there will be a fee of 2.5% on the principal outstanding at the time of such closure’. Hence, it is evident from the terms and conditions duly signed and executed by both the parties that the OP has charged from the complainant for pre-closure of loan account as per terms and conditions. Admittedly the complainant deposited the same except raising mere oral plea that it was deposited under protest. Such oral plea cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Therefore, there is no deficiency on the part of the OP.

8.     We are, therefore of the considered opinion, the complaint does not have any merit and accordingly the same is dismissed without any order as to costs.

9.           Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.

mp