HDFC Bank Ltd. VS Vinod Gupta

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

SUBHASH CHANDRA, AVM J. RAJENDRA
HDFC Bank Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Vinod Gupta – Respondent

Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellants:Mr Sharique Hussain, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr Rohit Sharma and Mr Jatin Lalwani, Advocates

ORDER

Per Mr Subhash Chandra

These appeals have been filed under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, ‘the Act’) against the order of the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in CC nos. 43, 44 and 45 of 2016 dated 07.12.2017. As these first appeals arise from the same order and pertain to a similar set of facts, they are disposed of by way of a common order. For the sake of convenience FA no.790 of 2018 is taken as the lead case.

2. In brief, the relevant facts of the case are that the appellant who is a scheduled Bank had promoted an investment scheme named Kisan Vikas Patra (KVP) Margin Funding Scheme under which 10% of the amount was to be invested by the applicant for the purchase of KVPs and the balance 90% was undertaken to be provided by the appellant Bank as loan under the KVP Margin Funding Scheme. The investors were assured of getting return of 21.01% or tax free return of 13.65% after 103 months as per the flow chart prepared by the appellant. The interest rate chargeable by the appellant on the 90% margin fund was fixed at 7% and the KVP was to earn interest at 8%. The respondent investe