IMPORTANT POINT
Banking loan obtained specifically for profit-making purposes – Respondent disqualified from being considered as a “consumer”.

JUDGMENT

Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, President.—The facts of the case as per the District Commission record are as under:

“The Complainant is a resident of Delhi and had availed financial services from the Opposite Party for financial requirements of the Complainant for earning his livelihood. The Opposite Party had sanctioned a credit facility of 138 lakhs for 12 years vide Agreement dated 01-11-2010 (copy of Sanction Letter annexed as ANNEXURE ‘C-1’) with Equated Monthly Installment (EMI) of ¹ 1,68,931/- per month under Loan Account Number 52205938910. The rate of interest was 10.5% variable. The facility was to operate as a Cash Credit facility with interest being charged only on the sum used by the Complainant. The Complainant mortgaged Property No. D-277, Ground Floor, Nirman Vihar, Delhi-110092.

That the Opposite Party sanctioned a sum of ¹ 1,38,00,000/- after charging the charges for insurance and processing fees. That the Complainant informed the Opposite Party that the credit of sanctioned amount was on 22-11-2010 but the Opposite Party had charged the interest from 13-11-2010 and requested vide emails dated 14-12-2010 and 17- 12-2010 for waiver of 9 days interest on the above Home Saver Account.

That the Complainant complained several times to the Opposite Party about unsatisfactory services to the above facility. But the Opposite Party did not pay any heed to the complaints of the Complainant.

That the Complainant also complained to the Opposite Party on 08-02-2011 that the interest on the above loan has been revised from 10.5% to 11% whereas it was assured by the Opposite Party at the time of taking the loan that the applicable rate of interest will not be revised at least one year. The Opposite Party, instead of making amends, raised the margin between base rate and chargeable interest rate from 3.00 per cent to 3.30 per cent without rendering any further/ additional services warranting the increase in charges.

That being dissatisfied from the services of the Opposite Party the Complainant wrote a letter dated 21-09-2011 to the Opposite Party to issue the foreclosure letter with LOD and also send the copy of property documents.

That the Complainant informed the Opposite Party that they are charging excess interest and annual charges in the account of the Complainant without rendering any additional and new services and requested for reversal of the same.

That apart from imposing extra charges in the account of the Complainant the Opposite Party has also not provided satisfactory credit facility and banking services to the Complainant. The same was informed to the Opposite Party vide email dated 20-01-2011.

That the Complaint wrote to the Opposite Party through email dated 13-01- 2012 that they have enhanced the rate of interest from 10.5% per annum to 13.05% within one year. The Complainant requested the Opposite Party to reduce the rate of interest to at least 12% on the loan and in the event, the Opposite Party is not agree to the request, the Complainant will be compelled to shift his loan account to other institution.

That being frustrated from the unethical approach and services of the Opposite Party the Complainant time and again wrote several mails to the Opposite Party seeking foreclosure of loan account but the Opposite Party did not pay any heed to the requests of the Complainant.

That the Complainant surprised to receive an email dated 24-04-2012 once again informing that an additional Home Saver Annual Fee of one percent of the Loan Outstanding will be charged every year on the amount outstanding.

That the Complainant keep writing emails to the Opposite Party requesting them to issue foreclosure amount to close the account but the Opposite Party did not pay any heed to all the requests of the Complainant.

That the Opposite Party, vide email dated 23-05-2012 asked the Complainant to reconsider the decision to close the account. The Opposite Party also falsely informed that concerns of the Complai