Responsibility for loan repayment and credit rating damage lies with the borrower, and banks are not liable for actions in accordance with loan terms and conditions.

Headnote:
Credit Card - Consumer Dispute - [Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r)] - The court discussed the terms and conditions of the loan repayment, the procedure for ECS debiting, and the complainant's responsibility for ensuring sufficient funds in the account. The court found that the bank acted in accordance with the terms and conditions of the loan repayment and that the complainant's default in repayments and failure to take remedial measures were the cause of any loss of credit rating. The court held that the bank's actions did not constitute a deficiency in service.
Fact of the Case:

The appellant held two credit cards and a personal loan from the respondent bank. The appellant alleged that the bank's actions, including early debiting of loan instalments, caused financial loss and damage to his credit rating.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the bank acted in accordance with the terms and conditions of the loan repayment and that the complainant's default in repayments and failure to take remedial measures were the cause of any loss of credit rating.
Issues: Dispute over loan repayment terms, early debiting of loan instalments, and responsibility for financial loss and credit rating damage.
Ratio Decidendi: The bank's actions did not constitute a deficiency in service, and the complainant's default in repayments and failure to take remedial measures were the cause of any loss of credit rating.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the impugned order was confirmed.

ORDER

Mr. Suresh Chandra, Member - Aggrieved of the order dated 19.1.2010 passed by the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad by which the State Commission dismissed the complaint No. 2 of 2007 filed by the appellant before the State Commission, the appellant/complainant has preferred this appeal before the National Commission challenging the State Commission's order.

2. The facts which are relevant for its disposal are that the appellant was having credit card (No. 5548374279632092) of the respondent/OP bank as a part of business and a second credit card (No.4476925497872247) also came to be issued to him even as he was already holding the first credit card. As per the allegation, the appellant/complainant kept the transactions of both the credit cards clear and up-to-date. According to him, the OP bank sent a letter dated 1.5.2005 for pre-approval of personal loan of Rs. 5 lakhs along with a certificate about the said personal loan of Rs. 5 lakhs. This loan was repayable in 48 months with monthly repayment instalments of Rs. 13,903/- and the rate of interest was 14.95% besides the processing fee of 1%. As per the allegation, the OP bank sent the payment schedule on 17.8.2005 followed by another schedule dated 8.4.2006 in which the OP bank indicated the instalment of Rs. 13,903/- per month as well as an additional instalment (49th) of Rs. 3346.37P payable by the appellant/complainant. Not only this, the OP bank also charged more interest on the first instalment amount on 15.8.2005. It is stated by the complainant that the OP bank decided that the monthly instalment amount by way of repayment of the loan shall be cleared through ECS on 15th date of each month for which the signature of the complainant was obtained on the form and accordingly the OP bank was sending the schedule sheet of repayment of loan instalments through ECS to the complainant/appellant. It is the case of the complainant that the OP bank in order to get monthly benefit in an illegal way, obtained the payment through the ECS on 13.12.2005 which was contrary to the terms of the agreement and hence illegal since repayment earlier then 15th of the month was not permissible. As a result of these illegal actions on the part of the OP bank, the complainant had to suffer huge loss of interest which according to him is illegal and contrary to the agreed terms and conditions and hence he wrote a letter to the OP bank which did not reply to that. It is stated that a cheque which was supposed to be deposited on 15.06.2006 had been deposited prior to that date and the said cheque sent for clearing on 13.6.2006, i.e., 2 days earlier and because of insufficient balance, the cheque was returned to the bank. Treating these actions on the part of the bank illegal, unjust and against the terms of the agreement, the complainant filed his consumer complaint before the State Commission wherein he claimed Rs. 25 lakhs towards compensation on account of deficiency in service along with 35% interest from the date of complaint till its realization.

3. On being noticed by the State Commission, the OP bank filed its reply in which it was claimed that the complaint against the bank is false and baseless. The OP bank also submitted that vide its letter dated 7.3.2006 it had already been explained by the OP bank to the complainant/appellant as to why the cheques are sent for clearance 2 to 3 days prior to due date. It was further submitted by the bank that after its letter, the appellant/complainant wilfully took the position not to repay the dues of the bank and he also resorted to file the complaint in question in order to wriggle out of all his committed liabilities. According to the OP bank as per the system in vogue, the ECS would be raised on or around 10th of every month in the manner that the amount of EMI is received by HSBC on or before 15th of every month so as to ensure that the procedure of interest calculation as per the computer system always remai

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis