Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Subhash Chandra, Presiding Member
Sunita Bali and Anr. – Petitioners
versus
Branch Manager, HDFC Bank – Respondent
Revision Petition No.229 of 2019
(Against the Order dated 20/08/2018 in Appeal No. 388/2018 of the State Commission Punjab)
Decided on 7.7.2023

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Parbodh Chander Bali – In Person
For the Respondent:Mr. Sharique Hussain, Advocate

IMPORTANT POINT
Evidence - National Commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, is not required to re-assess and re-appreciate the evidence on record when the findings of the lower fora are concurrent on facts.

Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21(1)(b)[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 58(1)(b)] - Revision – Scope of Interference in Revisional Jurisdiction - National Commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, is not required to re-assess and re-appreciate the evidence on record when the findings of the lower fora are concurrent on facts. It can interfere with the concurrent findings of the fora below only on the grounds that the findings are either perverse or that the fora below have acted without jurisdiction. Findings can be concluded to be perverse only when they are based on either evidence that have not been produced or based on conjecture or surmises i.e. evidence which are either not part of the record or when material evidence on record is not considered – Therefore, Petition dismissed. [Paras 10 to 14].
Result: Petition dismissed.

ORDER

This revision petition under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the ‘Act’) assails the order dated 20.08.2018 in First Appeal No. 388 of 2018 dated 20.08.2018 disposed vide common order in First Appeal No. 401 of 2018 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh (in short, the ‘State Commission’) dated 20.08.2018 allowing the appeal and dismissing order dated 18.05.2018 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar (in short, the ‘District Forum’) in Consumer Complaint no. 17/186 of 2012.

2. The facts, in brief, according to the revision petitioners, are that they had obtained a loan of Rs 11 lakhs for the marriage of their son from the respondent on 23.05.2015 on floating rate of interest. On 10.07.2015 they approached the respondent bank to foreclose the loan in one instalment. However, the respondent refused to do so stating that foreclosure charges and penal interest would apply, and the loan could be closed only in monthly instalments over 7 years. It is stated that the amount was not accepted in the loan account and instead two fixed deposits of Rs 8 lakhs and Rs 2 lakhs respectively were opened on 10.07.2015 and 11.07.2015. Thus, while sufficient funds, including amount in the bank account was available, the loan of Rs 10,95,182.75 was not foreclosed. The petitioners were misled into amending the fixed deposits to Rs 8,25,000/- and Rs 2,75,000/- on 14.07.2015. Petitioners state that ten months later they became aware of guidelines of Reserve Bank of India (RBI) that banks could not charge foreclosure of loans on floating rates and again approached the respondent bank for foreclosure and also sent an email on 05.03.2017. As there was no response to the request, petitioners approached the District Forum in March 2017 which ordered partially in their favour on 18.05.2017. Both petitioners and the respondent herein approached the State Commission in appeal which, vide the impugned order, dismissed the appeals and upheld the order of the State Commission. Hence this revision petition.

3. Heard the petitioner in person and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the records.

4. The order of the District Forum reads as below:—

“8. … We allow the complaint and the opposite party is directed to adjust the remaining outstanding amount without charging any prepayment charges. As the complainant has suffered a lot in the hands of the opposite party, as such the complainant is entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs 30,000/- (Thirty thousand) while litigation expenses are assessed at Rs 5,000/-…”

5. The impugned order of the State Commission held as under:—

11. … The sole proprietorship concerned is not a company and firm and Apex Court has held in Bhagwati Vanaspati Traders versus Senior Superintendent of Post Offices reported in 2015 (2) CPR 405 (SC) by holding that in a sole proprietorship concern, individual uses a fictional trade name in place of his own name only. The rigidity adopted by authorities is clearly ununderstandable. … The contention of OP is not accepted that sole proprietorship concern is not an individual and is not a living person. The order of the District Forum is correct in holding that foreclosure charges are unauthorized, because it is a case of loan against property where the borrowers are individuals.

12. … We are not impressed with the submission of Sh. Parbodh Chander Bali one of the complainants as advanced before us. FDR cannot be opened without the express consent of the customers by the Bank. Why the complainants gave consent for opening fixed deposit receipts and now complainants are stopped from arguing to the contrary. Fixed Deposit Receipts are opened only with the express consent to the concerned person by the bank and hence we find no force in the prayer and contentions of the complainants for reimbursement of the excess charges recovered from them towards loan amount interest vis-a-vis the interest accrued

Click Here to Read the rest of this document