NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/2726/2009

HDFC BANK LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

YADAVA SHETTY - Opp.Party(s)

MS. CHETNA BHALLA & MR. PUNIT K. BHALLA

29 Jul 2010

ORDER


NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. 2726 OF 2009
(Against the Order dated 16/02/2009 in Appeal No. 1075/2009 of the State Commission Karnataka)
1. HDFC BANK LTD.Branch Office at:- 9th Floor, Ansal Classigque Tower, Plot No-1, J-Block, Community CentreRajouri GardenNew Delhi ...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. YADAVA SHETTYS/o Koraga Shetty, Bakyara Kodi House, Mijar, Badagayadapadavu Village & Post KinnikamblaMangalore-574 267 ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. GUPTA ,PRESIDING MEMBERHON'BLE MR. S.K. NAIK ,MEMBER
For the Petitioner :MS. CHETNA BHALLA & MR. PUNIT K. BHALLA
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 29 Jul 2010
ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

Copy of the statement of bank Exbt. R-2 referred to in the order of District Forum dated 27.2.2009 would show that the rate of interest charged by the petitioner Bank from the respondent/complainant on the -2- loan advanced was 55.20% p.a. Direction of the District Forum to the Bank is to recalculate the rate of interest as per the Benchmark Prime Lending Rate which was 11.75%. Sri Bhalla whom we have heard on admission, submits that under the guidelines issued by RBI (copy at pages 46-63) the petitioner Bank had the freedom in fixing its Lending Rates and interest at the said rate of 55.60% p.a. charged is, therefore, as per these guidelines. He could not tell what was the Benchmark Prime Lending Rate of the petitioner Bank at the time the loan was sanctioned to the respondent. As is manifest from the order of District Forum, the said direction given to the petitioner Bank was based on the Benchmark Prime Lending Rate of the Syndicate Bank. In our view petitioner Bank cannot charge interest at the exorbitant rate of 55.60% p.a. under the garb of the said guidelines of R.B.I. There is no illegality or jurisdictional error in the order of State Commission warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the C.P. Act, 1986. Revision petition is, therefore, dismissed.


......................JK.S. GUPTAPRESIDING MEMBER
......................S.K. NAIKMEMBER