The court upheld the validity of charges based on the loan agreement and relevant documents, and found no evidence of unfair trade practices.

ORDER

Sham Sunder, President - This order shall dispose of the aforesaid two First Appeal Nos. 301 of 2013 titled as Standard Chartered Bank v. Ajit Goel and Another, and 331 of 2013 titled Ajit Goel and Another v. Standard Chartered Bank, arising out of the common order dated 7.6.2013, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it allowed Consumer Complaint, bearing No. 327 of 2012, and directed the Opposite Party (now appellant in First Appeal No. 301 of 2013 and respondent in First Appeal No. 331 of 2013) , as under:

"Hence, we are of the opinion that foreclosure charges of 4.41% levied by the Opposite Party on the Complainants at the time of foreclosure have been wrongly levied as they have not been provided in terms of the agreement placed on record by the Opposite Party. Also levy of annual charge of Rs. 1,32,002 is not part of the agreement and hence, to our mind, not leviable by the Opposite Party. This complaint is allowed accordingly. The Opposite Party is directed to refund the total amount of foreclosure charges taken from the Complainants, as well as the amount of Rs. 1,32,002 as annual charge. The amount be refunded along with interest @9% p.a. from the date of receipt till the date of payment. Opposite Party will also pay Rs. 10,000 towards costs of litigation".

2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainants were sanctioned loan against property (LAP), by the Opposite Party, vide letter dated 17.7.2010 [Annexure C-1], to the tune of Rs. 1.4 crores, for 156 months. The rate of interest which was to be charged by the Opposite Party was bifurcated as, base rate @7.25%, margin @ 3.26% and Special Offer Rate applicable @ 10.51% p.a. The monthly instalment was computed to the tune of Rs. 1,64,934. For sanctioning the aforesaid loan, the opposite party had charged Rs. 74,210, as fees, from the complainants. It was stated that foreclosure charges, to the tune of 2% were to be applicable. Once the loan documents were received, the complainants requested the opposite party, to clarify their terms, with regard the foreclosure/pre-closure charges, in case, they wished to exercise the said option, as the documents supplied were silent on this aspect. The opposite party, vide letter dated 31.7.2010 Annexure C-2, clarified that the foreclosure/pre-closure charges/fees would be charged @2% on the loan limit.

3. After availing of the loan, the complainants regularly remitted the monthly instalments, without default. However, in March, 2011, the opposite party sent a letter dated 17.3.2011 Annexure C-3, to the complainants, levying an annual charge of Rs. 1,32,002.10Ps., starting from 28.3.2011. On receiving the said letter, the complainants expressed anguish over the levy of the annual charge. The complainants expressed to the opposite party that there was no mention of any levy of annual charge, at the time of sanctioning of loan, or in the original contract/agreement. The complainants also expressed their desire, to transfer the loan, to another Bank. It was further stated that correspondence was exchanged, between the parties, regarding the annual charge. Meanwhile, the opposite party revised the margin i.e. the difference between the variable rate of interest and base rate from 3.56% to 4.76%, with effect from 1.4.2011. The complainants took up the matter, with the opposite party, regarding levying of the unjustified charges, unilaterally. The complainants brought to the notice of the opposite party, that, at the time of disbursement of loan, margin was to remain static, and only base rate could vary. In reply, the opposite party offered a waiver of 0.50% in the annual fee, for a year. Eventually, not satisfied with the services provided, as well as the unprofessional behavior of the opposite party, the complainants requested it, for foreclosure of the loan, vide e-mail dated 4.7.2011 Annexure C-9.

4. In response, the compla