Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/65/2018

Jasmer Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, Fullerton India Credit Co. Limited - Opp.Party(s)

B.K Duggal Adv. & Rajesh Kuamr Adv.

22 May 2019

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

 

Appeal No.	:	65 of 2018
Date of Institution	:	05.04.2018
Date of Decision	:	22.05.2019

 

Jasmer Singh, Age 54 years, son of Late Mohinder Singh R/o Village Churheri, P.O. Pabhat, District Mohali, Punjab.

 

…….Appellant/Complainant.

Versus

 

The Branch Manager, Fullerton India Credit Co. Limited, SCO 141-142, 1^st Floor, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh.

 

                                                     ...Respondent/Opposite Party.

 

 

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986  against   order dated 13.02.2018 passed by District   Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh   in Consumer Complaint No.11 of 2016.

 

BEFORE: JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER.

                MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER.

 

Argued by:

 

Sh. B. K. Duggal, Advocate for the appellant.

Er. Sandeep Suri, Advocate for the respondent alongwith Sh. Bhupinder Tanwar, Sr. Manager (Legal) of the Company.

 

PER  RAJESH  K.  ARYA, MEMBER

                   The appellant/complainant has filed this appeal against order dated 13.02.2018 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (in short ‘the Forum’ only), vide which, complaint bearing No.11 of 2016 filed by him (appellant/complainant) was dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

2.              Before the Forum, it was case of the complainant that he took a personal loan of Rs.62,392/- from the Opposite Party on 14.10.2011, which was to be repaid in 36 EMIs of Rs.3,213/- each. It was further stated that even after repayment of the entire loan, when the Opposite Party continued to deduct the installments from his account, the complainant approached the Opposite Party to stop deducting the amount, to issue NOC and to refund the excessive amount already deducted. It was further stated that instead of doing the needful, the Opposite Party dilly dallied the matter on one pretext or the other. It was further stated that left with no option, the complainant served a legal notice dated 02.12.2015 upon the opposite party, but to no avail. Hence, a consumer complaint was filed before the Forum. 

3.             The opposite party, in its reply, stated that the loan was repayable in 48 equal monthly installments of Rs.3,213/- each and not in 36 months as alleged by the complainant. It was further stated that the complainant had issued standing instructions for the debit of the amount from his account which was being done.  It was further stated that once all the installments are paid, the Company shall stop instructions for the purposes of debit of any account. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the opposite party nor it indulged into any unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

4.             The parties led evidence in support of their case.

5.             After going through the evidence on record and submissions of Counsel for the parties, the Forum dismissed the complaint, as referred to above.

6.             Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been 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.             Counsel for the appellant/complainant submitted that the impugned order passed by the Forum cannot be supported from any angle being based on conjectures and surmises. It was further submitted that the Forum did not consider the facts as the appellant/complainant exhibited all the relevant documents as well as loan agreement, which proved that the appellant/complainant had already paid the entire loan amount and rather paid excessive amount. It was vehemently argued that charging of interest at such an exorbitant rate i.e. 47% on the loan amount is highly detrimental to the interest of the appellant/complainant and is also against the settled law on the subject. The appellant/complainant     pathetically argued that charging of exorbitant rate of 47% compounded monthly made his financial position worse as despite repaying a total amount of Rs.1,28,520/-, which is more than double the principal loan amount of Rs.62,392/- taken from the respondent/opposite party and still the respondent/opposite party is claiming Rs.22,143.29 as due/outstanding from the borrower/ appellant/complainant. It was also argued that charging of much higher interest rate by the respondent/opposite party, which is a Non-Banking Financial Company, is an unfair trade practice on the part of the respondent/opposite party. It was argued that the respondent/opposite party failed to adopt Fair Practice Code issued by Reserve Bank of India (in short ‘RBI’). It was further submitted that at various times, RBI advised the NBFCs, as the respondent/opposite party is, to regulate the interest rates and the rate of interest beyond the certain level has been held to be excessive. It was further submitted that charging of interest by the respondent/opposite party at such a higher rate can neither be sustainable nor be conforming to normal financial practice.  It was prayed that the appeal be allowed and the impugned order dismissing the complaint be set aside and the respondent/opposite party be directed to refund the excess amount charged from the appellant/complainant.

9.             On the other hand, Counsel for the respondent/opposite party submitted that the sanctioned loan amount was to be repaid by the appellant/complainant in 48 EMIs of Rs.3,213/- each. It was argued that against 48 EMIs, the appellant/complainant had remitted 40 EMIs and 8 EMIs totaling to the tune of Rs.27,704/- are still due to be paid by him. It was further argued that interest was charged on daily basis with monthly rest on the outstanding principle balance in accordance with the loan agreement. It was further argued that as per loan summary schedule to the loan agreement, rate of interest was 47% per annum compounded with monthly rest and delayed payment charges plus applicable taxes and/or other statutory levies, cheque/ECS dishonor charges, loan processing fee/charges, documentation fee/charges and prepayment charges were also reflected in the said document, which was duly signed by the appellant/complainant. It was argued that the respondent/opposite party has given each and every information relating to loans, interest, penal interest/late payment charges, processing/documentation and other charges etc. on its website.

10.           It is not in dispute that an amount of Rs.62,392/- was disbursed by the respondent/opposite party out of the total sanctioned principal loan amount of Rs.69,300/- and  Loan Agreement dated 30.09.2011 was executed between the appellant/complainant and the respondent/opposite party.

11.           As per the appellant/complainant, the said loan amount was to be repaid in 36 monthly equated installments of Rs.3,213/- each, whereas, according to the respondent/opposite party, it was to be repaid in 48 months. To settle this controversy, we may first refer to Payment Schedule at Page 44 of Forum’s record. Perusal of said document shows that the first installment was to start from 05.11.2011 and the last installment was payable on 05.10.2015, which period comes to 48 months. Further, the above fact stands corroborated from Statement of Account (Annexure C-3) and Loan Summary Schedule to the Loan Agreement, wherein, the tenure of loan has been mentioned as 48 months. Therefore, the loan was to be repaid in 48 months and not 36 months as alleged by the appellant/complainant.

12.           Now coming to the issue of charging excess amount from the appellant/complainant, it may be stated here that shockingly, the respondent/opposite party is charging interest @47% per annum compounded with monthly rest, which is too much to digest by anyone. No doubt, the respondent/opposite party is NBFC and RBI instructions are duly applicable on the respondent/opposite party. It may not be out of place to mention here that as per RBI guidelines issued to commercial banks and to NBFCs, the RBI has directed them not to increase the interest rate at their own accord when loans are given at floating rate of interest. In the instant case, though the interest at which the loan was sanctioned/disbursed i.e. 47% is not at floating rate yet it cannot be accepted, if we look to the RBI instructions. Charging of interest at such a high rate is inhumane. We would like to extract below the portion of Statement of Account i.e. Pay Details, to show unfair trade practice on the part of the respondent/opposite party:-

	Principal	Interest	Delayed Charges	Penal Interest	Other Charges	Total	Prepayments
Paid	47,945.24	80,574.76	0.00	0.00	0.00	1,28,520.00	0.00
Dues	21,793.63	0.00	0.00	349.66	0.00	22,143.29	0.00

 

13.           Perusal of Statement of Account reveals that against the disbursed loan amount of Rs.62,392/-, the appellant/complainant has already paid an amount of Rs.1,28,520/- till 23.02.2015 and still 8 installments are due to be paid by him. The appellant/complainant has already paid more than double the disbursed loan amount and still the respondent/opposite party is demanding 8 more installments of Rs.3,213/- i.e. Rs.25,704/-. We have no hesitation to say that the respondent/opposite party did not feel any indignity in peeling the skin of the appellant/complainant, which act of its is against humanity and social well being. Not only this, perusal of statement of account also reveals that the respondent/opposite party charged Rs.3,000/- as Fullerton India Privilege Program Membership Fee and Rs.3,500/- towards Sampoorna Suraksha Premium, which was wrong and arbitrary. There is nothing on record to show that any consent of the appellant/complainant was ever sought for Privilege Program Membership or Sampoorna Suraksha granted and details whereof were never explained to the appellant/complainant. The respondent/ opposite party did not even feel it appropriate to inform the appellant/complainant qua above before disbursing the loan amount or at the time of applying for the loan. Nothing of this kind was mentioned in the application form submitted by the appellant/complainant for personal loan. He was compulsorily made to become the member of the club, of which he did not avail any benefit.  A poor consumer i.e. the appellant/complainant, a class IV employee who had come forward to raise loan for marriage of his daughter was made a member of the premium club and he was illegally burdened with Rs.3,000/- towards fee of the club. Not only above, to further compound the woes of the appellant/complainant, the respondent/opposite party arbitrarily and illegally charged interest @47% on the aforesaid club fee as well as on primary amount of Rs.3,500/- taken by the respondent/opposite party from the disbursed amount, which was not his request also. That is why, the resultant balance is inflated, which could not be adjusted out of the installments paid by the appellant/complainant. Therefore, these charges were arbitrarily levied upon the appellant/complainant. The loan was taken by the appellant/complainant for his daughter in September 2011. We can say with all our concern that marrying a daughter for a poor consumer is always a challenge, when his earnings are only from hand to mouth. This can very well be judged in the case of the appellant/complainant, who opted to take personal loan from the respondent/opposite party just to marry his daughter and such an exorbitant interest rate of 47% was charged by the respondent/opposite party.

14.           Not only in this case but also to safeguard the interest of the consumers at large, the main concern of this Commission is as regards charging of such an exorbitant rate of interest by NBFCs while granting personal loans etc.

15.           Counsel for the respondent/opposite party argued that rate of interest charged by banking companies cannot be subject to scrutiny by Courts. To say so, he referred to Section 21A of Banking Regulation Act, 1949, which reads thus:-

“[21A. Rates of interest charged by banking companies not to be subject to scrutiny by courts.— Notwithstanding anything con­tained in the Usurious Loans Act, 1918 (10 of 1918), or any other law relating to indebtedness in force in any State, a transaction between a banking company and its debtor shall not be re-opened by any court on the ground that the rate of interest charged by the banking company in respect of such transaction is excessive.]”

 

16.           It may be stated here that we are not reopening any transaction between a banking company and its debtor but our prime concern is regarding charging of higher rate of interest by NBFCs, which is unreasonable.

17.           Vide its instructions/letters issued from time to time, Reserve Bank of India expressed its concern qua charging of excessive interest by NBFCs.

18.           On 24.05.2007, on complaints being received by RBI qua charging of excessive interest by NBFCs, it (RBI) wrote to all the NBFCs including RNBCs, inter-alia, as under:-

“2.     Though interest rates are not regulated by the Banks, rates of interest beyond a certain level may be seen to be excessive and can neither be sustainable or be conforming to normal financial practice.”

19.           Boards of NBFCs were advised to lay out appropriate internal principles and procedures in determining interest rates and processing and other charges and it was also directed to keep in view the guidelines indicated in the Fair Practices Code about transparency in respect of terms and conditions of the loans.

20.           Not only this, vide subsequent letter dated 02.01.2009, Reserve Bank of India, in continuation of its letter dated 24.05.2008, in order to regulate the credit system of the country to its advantage, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 45L of Reserve Bank of India, 1934 issued the following directions to NBFCs:-

“a)     The Board of each NBFC shall adopt an interest rate model taking into account relevant factors such as, cost of funds, margin and risk premium, etc. and determine the rate of interest to be charged for loans and advances. The rate of interest and the approach for gradation of risk and rationale for charging different rate of interest to different categories of borrowers shall be disclosed to the borrower or customer in the application form and communicated explicitly in the sanction letter.

b)      The rates of interest and the approach for gradation of risks shall also be made available on the web-site of the companies or published in the relevant newspapers. The information published in the website or otherwise published should be updated whenever there is a change in the rates of interest.

c)       The rate of interest should be annualized rates so that the borrower is aware of the exact rates that would be charged to the account.”

 

21.           Thus, RBI advised all the NBFCs to lay out appropriate internal principles and procedures in determining interest rates and processing and other charges.

22.           Not only above, the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in the case of Awaz and others Vs. Reserve Bank of India, decided on 24.10.2007, observed as under:-

“From the various circulars issued by the RBI, it appears that the RBI repeatedly emphasized that usurious rates of interest cannot be charged by the banks but it appears that there is no control on this issue and the banks/non-banking financial institutions are exploiting the situation and the concerned officers of RBI appear to be unaware of the same.

We would add that under the Consumer Protection Act, charging of such rates of interest would amount to exploitation of the borrowers needs and to a large extent amount to unfair trade practice.”

23.           As such, despite clear-cut advisory on the subject of the RBI, there are some NBFCs, which are still charging very excessive rate of interest, as in the presence case i.e. 47%.

24.           Still after paying so much amount, the loan account of the appellant/complainant has not been liquidated. The respondent/opposite party is still charging the same interest @47% and is flaunting the norms and guidelines issued by RBI from time to time. It reminds us of the era of Money-lenders (Sahukars) or Village Mahajans, whose modus-operandi has always been exploitative and nowhere was this more true than in tribal areas where, interest rates were shockingly high.  They used to charge very high interest rates on small loan amounts. We have no hesitation to call the respondent/opposite party, in the instant case, as Sahukar, who is lending money and charging usurious interest.

25.           When enquired during arguments from the parties, it transpired that the respondent/opposite party is still charging the same rate of interest i.e. 47% per annum compounded with monthly rest and delayed payment charges plus applicable taxes despite the fact that the matter is pending adjudication before this Commission, which showed their highhandedness and zeal to extort as much money as it can from the poor innocent consumers i.e. the appellant/complainant who took personal loan of Rs.62,392/- for getting his daughter married. The respondent/opposite party did not even think that how the appellant/complainant, who is taking personal loan to marry his daughter, would repay the said amount that too, when such an unfair rate of interest is being charged from him, which is totally illegal and against the guidelines issued by RBI from time to time to charge reasonable rate of interest. It may also be stated here that the clauses qua charging of interest @47%  are totally one sided and against the interest of the appellant/complainant. It also did not take care of the interest of the appellant/complainant and as such, said clause in the agreement is void abinitio. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has in the case of Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Govindan Raghavan, Civil Appeal No.12238 of 2018 decided on 02.04.2019 held that incorporation of one-sided clauses in a builder-buyer agreement constitutes an unfair trade practice as per Section 2(r) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Bench was considering an appeal against the order of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi wherein it was held that the clause relied upon by the builder to resist the refund claims made by the co0mplainant buyer, were wholly one sided, unfair and unreasonable and could not be relied upon. The Hon’ble Apex court held in Paras 6.7 and 7 of the judgment as under:-

“6.7  A term of a contract will not be final and binding, if it is shown that the flat purchasers had no option but to sign on the dotted line, on a contract framed by the builder. The contractual terms of the Agreement dated 08.05.2012 are ex-facie one sided, unfair and unreasonable. The incorporation of such one-sided clauses in an agreement constitutes an unfair trade practice as per Section 2(r) of the Consumer Protection Act, 186 since it adopts unfair methods or practices for the purpose of selling the flats by the Builder.

7.     In view of the above discussion, we have no hesitation in holding that the terms of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement dated 08.05.2012 were wholly one-sided and unfair to the Respondent – flat Purchaser. The Appellant – Builder could not seek to bind the Respondent with such one-sided contractual terms.”

 

                Therefore, in view of law settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, one sided clauses have no binding force on the appellant/complainant.

26.           Not only above, the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in the case of India Bulls Housing Finance Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Boota Singh Sidhu, Revision Petition No.2884 of 2017 decided on 17.11.2017 has clearly held that certain clauses in the loan agreement which are apparently not in conformity with the RBI guidelines, constitute unfair trade practice and such an agreement itself becomes voidable as certain provisions of the agreement are against the law of the land. In the said case, the Hon’ble National Commission also took notice of RBI directions, whereby the NBFCs were advised to regulate the interest rate and the rate of interest beyond the certain level was held to be excessive, which could neither be sustainable nor conforming to normal financial practice. Thereafter, against aforesaid order dated 17.11.2017, India Bulls Housing Finance Ltd. & Anr. filed SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, which was withdrawn on 23.04.2018 with permission to file the review application before the Hon’ble National Commission. Accordingly, a Review Application bearing No.134 of 2018 was filed before the Hon’ble National Commission on 01.05.2018 against aforesaid order dated 17.11.2017, which was dismissed by the Hon’ble National Commission vide order dated 02.11.2018.

27.           Further in the case of Fortuna Foundation and Engineers and Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Vs. RBI and Anr., W.P.(C) 1161/2010 decided by High Court of Delhi on 28.10.2013, it was observed as under:-

“While regulating the credit system of the country to its advantage, the RBI cannot ignore the interests of the borrowers from Non-Banking Financial Companies and if it is satisfied that a particular Non-Banking Financial Company, is charging interest at unreasonable rates or it is levying charges which are not called for or the extent of such charges are levied by the financial institution concerned is unreasonable, the RBI would be very much within its jurisdiction in issuing appropriate direction(s) to the financial institution concerned to modify its rate of interest or charges as the case may be. In a case where RBI finds that some charge being levied by the financial institution on its borrowers is wholly unjustified and uncalled for, it can direct such a financial institution to refrain from levying such charges. The RBI in exercise of its powers under Section 45L of the RBI Act, will also be justified in directing the financial institution concerned to refund the unreasonable interest and/or other charges, if any, recovered by it from its borrowers, provided the RBI is satisfied that issue of such a direction is necessary to regulate the credit system of the country to its advantage. For the purpose of enabling it to take appropriate decision in this regard the RBI can call for such information from a financial institution as is deemed necessary in this regard.”

 

 

28.                It appears that there is no ready alternative to the rapacious usurer. That is not until and unless decision-makers start thinking about the problem seriously, there will never be an alternative to the pernicious money-lenders like the respondent/ opposite party.

29.           When we specifically asked the Counsel for the respondent/ opposite party to justify charging of interest @47% per annum compounded with monthly rest on the amount of loan raised by the appellant/complainant and how the respondent/opposite party arrived at such an exorbitant interest rate, the respondent/opposite party filed affidavit of its Sh. Ajay Sharma, Manager Legal wherein it was stated that the rate of interest is not 47% on monthly compounded basis but it is on monthly reducing basis as is required by RBI. It was further stated that rate of interest fixed on various components of loan to be given are also mentioned in the website. It was further stated that the interest rate rationale policy of the respondent/opposite party for determining interest rates, processing & other charges is available at its website. It was further stated that by giving waiver of 2% in IRR (Interest) on IRR as per Grid of 49.00% and further by taking processing fee waiver of 3.5%, the IRR was offered at 47%.                

30.           The contents of the affidavit are totally vague. The Counsel for the respondent/opposite party miserably failed to explain that how the respondent/opposite party calculated interest at 47% and why it was not a figure below than that. The interest could be charged at say 12.50% to 16%, which the nationalized banks like State Bank of India are charging and why at 47% only in the case of the appellant/complainant. It may be stated here that NBFCs have to be transparent and the rate of interest and manner of arriving at the rate of interest to different categories of borrowers should be clearly explained to the borrower or customer in the application form and communicated explicitly in the sanction letter etc.

31.           However, Reserve Bank of India does not specify any interest rate nor any ceiling rate. It does specify guidelines of Fair Practices Codes and where complaints are received, these are examined within the parameters of the guidelines.

32.           It is need of the hour that RBI should step into and conduct forensic audit of the respondent/opposite party, which is a NBFC and fix a cut of rate, beyond which, NBFCs cannot charge interest to the detriment of the borrower/consumer as cost of funds in the present low interest rate regime cannot be so high.

33.               It may be stated here that qua charging of illegal and excessive interest rates, the Madras High Court in the case of Ar. Jeyarhuthran vs The Union Of India, Writ Petition (MD)No.14627 of 2012 decided on 14.11.2014, issued directions to the Reserve Bank of India to look into the matter, in terms of its own Fair Practices Code as well as Circulars and Notifications issued from time to time and referred to above.

34.           Charging such an exorbitant rate of interest @47% on a personal loan of a poor employee for the marriage of his daughter is a shylockian act on the part of the respondent/opposite party. This harsh hardhearted conduct of the respondent/opposite party is explicit from the fact that even after repaying an amount of Rs.1,28,520/-, which is more than double the disbursed loan amount of Rs.62,392/-, still the respondent/opposite party is demanding eight more installments i.e. Rs.25,204/- from the appellant/complainant.

35.           Thus, in our considered opinion, charging of excessive interest, which goes totally against the norms and observations made by the Reserve Bank of India vide guidelines/notifications issued from time to time stating that reasonable interest rate should be charged, the respondent/opposite party indulged into unfair trade practice. Now it is high time, we expect that the Reserve Bank of India should step in to secure the interest of poor consumers and tighten the knot of such free giants, on whom nobody seems to have any control and who are charging exorbitant rates of interest whatever they like. 

36.           We, therefore, recommend Reserve Bank of India,     which is a prime body to regulate the financial advisories in         our Country:-

(a) To conduct forensic audit of the respondent/ opposite party and its branches and fix a cut of rate, beyond which, NBFCs cannot go in charging interest;

(b)To impose heavy cost on respondent/opposite party and such like NFBCs, which are still charging exorbitant rates of interest from poor consumers, totally against the guidelines issued by RBI on Fair Practice Code and reasonable rate of interest.

(c) To take punitive action including cancellation of license, if required, against the respondent/opposite party and also such like NBFCs, who are still flaunting RBI Norms.

37.           Thus, in our considered opinion, the respondent/ opposite party is liable to refund the amounts of Rs.3,000/- and Rs.3,500/- charged towards Fullerton India Privilege Program Membership Fee and Sampoorna Suraksha Premium and interest charged thereon @47% to the appellant/complainant.

38.           For indulging into unfair trade practice and causing mental agony and physical harassment to the appellant/complainant, the appellant/complainant is also held entitled to compensation of Rs.70,000/-. The respondent/opposite party has been fleecing numerous borrowers with such exorbitant rates, as has been done in the case of the present appellant/complainant. Not only in the past but presently also, the respondent/opposite party has been charging a very high rate of interest from the appellant/complainant. When we had a glance at the website of the respondent/opposite party, we were shocked to see that still they are charging up to 49% interest rate on personal loans. The respondent/opposite party is still continuing with unfair trade practice despite numerous guidelines issued by RBI from time to time clarifying that the NBFC should charge reasonable rate of interest. For fleecing numerous consumers like the appellant/complainant, we are of the concerted view, that the respondent/opposite must be burdened with exemplary cost. We impose an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- upon the respondent/opposite party as exemplary cost, out of which, an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- will be paid to PGIMER, Chandigarh to be further deposited in the Poor Patient Welfare Fund (PPWF) and the remaining amount of Rs.2,00,000/- will be deposited in Consumer Legal Aid Account No.32892854721 maintained by this Commission.

39.           In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order dismissing the complaint is set aside. Consequently, the complaint is partly allowed and the respondent/opposite party is directed as under:-

(i)          To refund the amounts of Rs.3,000/- & Rs.3,500/- charged towards Fullerton India Privilege Program Membership Fee and Sampoorna Suraksha Premium and interest @47% charged thereon and credit the same in the Personal Loan Account of the appellant/complainant within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which the aforesaid amounts shall carry penal interest @10% per annum with effect from respective dates of payments made till actual realization.

(ii)        To issue ‘No Due Certificate” to the appellant/complainant against his loan account, without charging any further amount/installment w.e.f  01 May 2019 onwards, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order after closing the loan account.       

(iii)      To pay an amount of Rs.70,000/- to the appellant/complainant on account of mental agony & physical harassment and indulgence into unfair trade practice and Rs.22,000/- towards litigation expenses, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which the aforesaid amounts shall carry interest @10% per annum from the date of filing the complaint before the Forum till actual realization.   

(iv)       To pay an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-  to PGIMER, Chandigarh towards discharge of its corporate social responsibility, which shall further be deposited in the Poor Patient Welfare Fund (PPWF) maintained by PGIMER, Chandigarh within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which the same will carry interest @10% p.a. from the date of default i.e. after expiry of period of 30 days till its deposit.

(v)         To deposit Rs.2,00,000/- in the “Consumer Legal Aid Account” No.32892854721, maintained with the State Bank of India, Sector 7-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh in the name of Secretary, Hon’ble State Commission UT Chandigarh within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which the same will carry interest @10% p.a. from the date of default i.e. after expiry of period of 30 days till its deposit.

40.           Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.

41.           Certified copy of this order be also sent to the Governor, Reserve Bank of India (RBI),  New Central Office Building, Shahid Bhagat Singh Road, Fort Mumbai, Maharashtra – 400 001 and also to Regional Director, Reserve Bank of India (RBI), Central Vista, Sector 17, Chandigarh - 160 017 and be emailed on their email IDs i.e. governor@rbi.org.in  and rdchandigarh@rbi.org.in respectively. 

42.           The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion

Pronounced.

22.05.2019.

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

(PADMA PANDEY)

MEMBER

 

 

(RAJESH  K. ARYA)

MEMBER

Ad