Date of filing – 13.01.2014

Date of Hearing – 08.08.2017

            Challenge in this appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) is to the Judgement/Final Order dated 12.12.2013 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata, Unit-II (for short, Ld. District Forum) in consumer complaint no. 203/2012.  By the impugned order, the Ld. District Forum allowed the complaint lodged by Sri Uttam Agarwal under Section 12 of the Act on contest with certain directions like – (a) to return the deducted interest amounting to Rs.11,112/-; (b) compensation of Rs.5,000/- and (c) punitive damages of Rs.10,000/- with a condition that if the OPs failed to comply with the said order within 15 days, they have to bear penal interest @ Rs.200/- per day till satisfaction of the award.

          The Respondent herein being Complainant lodged the complaint stating that in order to avail a Home Equity Loan, he approached the Bank on 31.10.2011 and the criteria of the said loan was – sanctioned limit Rs.40,00,000/-; sanction loan tenor 120 months; disbursement date 30^th November, 2011; monthly EMI Rs.58,551/- and schedule of payment date 8^th day of every month and EMI starts from 8^th December, 2011.  The complainant alleged that though the amount of loan should have been disbursed on 30.11.2011 but he received the same on 07.12.2011 after expiry of 8 days and that too he received the demand draft at 09:50 P.M.  The complainant alleged that for such delayed disbursement, OP Bank sent a fake demand of interest of Rs.11,112/- extra for 7 days.  Hence, the Respondent approached the Ld. District Forum with prayer for several reliefs, viz. – (a) to direct the OP Bank to refund Rs.11,112/-; (b) compensation of Rs.75,000/- etc.

          The Appellants being Opposite Party Nos. 1 & 2 by filing a written version have admitted that they sanctioned a sum of Rs.40,00,000/- as housing loan in favour of the complainant and on issuance of sanctioned letter, the Bank issued a demand draft bearing No.887796 dated 30.11.2011 for a sum of Rs.40,00,000/- for the complainant.  However, the demand draft was not taken delivery by the complainant to be encashed till some documents are submitted with the Bank and as such there was no deficiency in services on the part of them.  

          After assessing the materials on record and the evidence led by the parties, the Ld. District Forum by the impugned order allowed the consumer complaint with certain directions, as indicated above, which prompted the OPs to prefer the appeal.

          Seen the materials on record and considered the submission advanced by the Ld. Advocate appearing for the Respondent.  None appears for the Appellants Bank when the record was taken up for hearing.  It may be pertinent to record that on the previous date i.e. on 19.04.2017 Ld. Advocate for the Appellants submitted that as ING Vysya Bank Ltd. has been merged with Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. and as such he will participate in the hearing after filing a fresh vakalatnama on behalf of Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. but unfortunately none appeared on behalf of Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. when the record called on for hearing.  Under compulsion, I proceed to dispose of the appeal on merit.

          Having heard the Ld. Advocate for the Respondent and on going through the materials on record, it would reveal that on 22.09.2011 the respondent approached the appellant no.1 Bank (erstwhile) with an application for housing loan for a sum of Rs.40,00,000/-.  Considering the documents furnished by the respondent, the appellant bank issued a sanctioned letter on 30.11.2011.  On that date, the bank also issued a demand draft bearing No.887796 for a sum of Rs. 40 lakhs in favour of the respondent.

          The admitted position is that the demand draft of Rs.40 lakhs dated 30.11.2011 was delivered to the respondent on 07.12.2011 at 09:50 P.M. which is much after the working hours of the appellant bank.  The appellant bank took a plea that the respondent has not filed several documents in favour of the bank like – (a) updated tax receipt and NOC from Co-Of society; (b) Power of Attorney; (c) revised valuation report; (d) genuineness certificates of original Deeds and (e) loan agreement partly filled up.

          The ground taken by the appellant bank is not at all convincing.  In Paragraph-9 (1) of the written version, the appellant bank has spell out that on the basis of documents furnished by the respondent, they issued a sanctioned letter.  That being so, the bank had no reason to hold the DD dated 30.11.2011 till 07.12.2011.  Had there been any dissatisfaction on the part of the appellant bank, they could avoid to sanction any loan but after sanctioning the same, they have no authority to hold the same and thereafter, claim interest of Rs.11,112/- for 7 days.

          The facts and circumstances make it quite clear that the respondent being a consumer approached the appellant bank and the appellant bank was deficient in rendering services as they did not hand over the DD to the respondent on 30.11.2011. 

          In that perspective, the Ld. District Forum was quite justified in allowing the petition of complaint with a direction upon the OPs/appellants to return the deducted interest of Rs.11,112/-, compensation of Rs.5,000/- and also litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- and as such I am in total agreement with the Ld. District Forum in this regard.

          However, the Ld. District Forum had no reason to impose punitive damages to the extent of Rs.10,000/- for adopting unfair trade practice by the appellant bank.  On perusal of the petition of complaint, I do not find any averment to that effect or any prayer in the prayer clause of the petition of complaint.  Since, fair procedure is the hall mark of natural justice and the appellant bank did not get opportunity to refute the contention with regard to imposition of punitive damages, the said award is liable to be set aside.

          Equally, the Ld. District Forum had also no reason to impose penal interest @ Rs.200/- per day which is also against the provisions of Section 3(1) of Interest Act, 1978.  The imposition of interest is not a penalty or punishment at all but is the normal accretion on capital, that in equity a person keeping the money is required to pay the interest being normal accretion on the principal amount.  Considering the same, the Ld. District Forum could have imposed prevalent bank interest over the awarded amount but there was hardly any reason to impose such penal interest and as such that part of the order is also liable to be set aside.

          Accordingly, the impugned order is modified to the extent that the appellant bank shall return the deducted interest amount of Rs.11,112/- + Rs.5,000/- as compensation + Rs.10,000/- as litigation cost aggregating Rs.26,112/- in favour of the respondent/complainant within 30 days from date, otherwise the amount shall carry interest @ 8% p.a. from date till its realisation.   

          With the above observations, the appeal stands disposed of. 

       The Registrar of this Commission is directed to send a copy of this order to the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata, Unit-II for information.