The court upheld that standard banking practices and agreements, compliant with regulations, do not constitute unfair trade practices.

1. It is proposed to dispose off R.P. Nos. 4782 and 4783, both of 2013, vide a common Order. Both these revision petitions arise out of the same Order of the District Forum in C.C. No. 996 of 2010 vide which the consumer complaint filed by the petitioner / complainant had been partly allowed, directing the respondents / OPs to refund Rs.20,603 with interest @ 12 % from 9.4.2009 till the date of payment, with cost of Rs.2,000.

2. This Order of the District Forum was challenged by both the complainant as well as the OPs.

3. F.A. No. 315 of 2012, filed by the OPs, was allowed vide State Commission's Order dated 28.12.2012, and the District Forum's Order was set aside. Against this Order of the State Commission, the complainant has filed R.P. No. 4782 of 2013.

4. F.A. No. 845 of 2012, filed by the complainant, seeking higher compensation, was dismissed by the State Commission vide order dated 22.3.2013, noting that the complainant had not challenged the Order of the State Commission dated 28.12.2012 in F.A. No. 315 of 2012, and therefore concluding that there was nothing more to be considered in the appeal. Against this, the complainant has filed R.P. No. 4783 of 2013 dated 17.12.2013.

5. As such, both the revision petitions basically challenge the impugned Order of the State Commission in F.A. No. 315 of 2012 dated 28.12.2012 vide which the District Forum's Order had been dismissed and the OPs appeal had been sustained. Both revision petitions have been filed by the complainant.

6. The brief facts of the case are as follows. The OP bank had taken over the complainant's existing loan from LIC Housing Finance Ltd. on certain terms viz. @ 7.25%, repayable in 262 EMIs at Rs.12,207 p.m.. This was on 24.2.2004. The complainant, on examining the statement of account dated 19.3.2008 noticed that he was being charged higher interest, without any notice and without obtaining his consent. So, the complainant issued a notice dated 21.3.2008 to the OPs seeking break up of figures. It is the case of the complainant that the OPs had obtained his signatures on standard format without explaining the terms and conditions to him and had ended up charging excess interest. On 12.6.2008, the complainant issued another notice to the OP demanding that his loan be foreclosed and the excess interest charged be refunded. He received no reply. Further, per the complainant, when he examined his statement of account from 6.7.2007 to 5.7.2009, he found that EMIs of Rs.12,207 comprised of Rs.166 by way of principal and Rs.12,041 by way of interest. Now, he was apprised of a scheme during April 2009 by the OP and offered the option to switch over to this scheme, the benefit being that his interest would reduce from 13.75% to 9.75%. For this switch, he had paid Rs.20,603. His plaint throughout the tenure of his loan is basically that OPs increased the interest payments by him on the loan whenever there was an increase in interest rate, without any notification and without obtaining his specific consent. However, the same thing did not happen when there was a decrease in interest rate. This was unfair. Further, when the complainant wanted to change to another bank which offered lower interest rate, the OPs demanded huge amount towards foreclosure. Hence, the complainant filed a consumer complaint No. 996 of 2010 before the District Forum, Hyderabad which, after due consideration, found some deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, and directed that the switch over fee of Rs.20,603 be refunded with 12 % interest.

7. Both the parties filed their respective appeals. In the appeal filed by the OPs, the appeal succeeded and the Order of the