IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION Date of Institution: 15.03.2012 Date of hearing: 10.10.2022 Date of Decision: 01.03.2023 FIRST APPEAL NO.-231/2012 IN THE MATTER OF M/S CITIBANK, N.A., THROUGH ITS HEAD MORTGAGES, 4^TH FLOOR, JEEVAN BHARTI BUILDING, CONNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI-110001.

(Through: Suri & Company, Law Firm)

…Appellant VERSUS MR. NARESH GARG, S/O LATE SHRI O.P. GARG, ADSUN ADVERTISING AGENCY, 8, NETAJI SUBHASH MARG, DARYA GANJ, NEW DELHI-110002.

(Through: Mr. Sanjeev Nirwani, Advocate)

…Respondent CORAM:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)

HON’BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Present: Mr. Sanjay Kumar, counsel for the Appellant.

Mr. Sanjeev Nirwani, counsel for the Respondent.

PER : HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, PRESIDENT

JUDGMENT

1. The facts of the case as per the District Commission record are as under:

“The complainant has been filed with the allegation that the complainant took a loan credit facility of Rs.80 lakhs for 15 years from the OP which was sanctioned on 31/01/2006 on EMI of Rs.83,538/- per month and the rate of interest was 1% less than the Citybank Mortgage Prime Rate. The OP were to adjust the amount of EMI’s towards the principal and interest as per the repayment schedule. In the month of July 2010 it was noticed by the complainant that the interest being charged by the OP in excess of what it should be. From the statement of account which is Annexure C-3 from October 2008 onwards the OP violated the repayment schedule and only meager amount was adjusted towards the principal. The surplus amount after recovery of the interest was transferred to non-productive account. The complainant have to make more payment and interest on the principle already paid by him. This was pointed out vide letter dated 09/10/2010 and explanation was sought for erroneous calculations and excessive interest. A vague reply was given on 22/10/2010. Email dated 28/10/2010 asking for the details of the statement and getting frustrated the complainant was left with no option to seek pre-closure of the facility vide email dated 29/10/2010. The OP was charged interest @12.75% while the complainant was getting facility from the Standard Charted Bank @ 10.5%. The OP sought a payment of Rs.58,58,075.14 vide letter dated 13/11/2010 including a sum of Rs.1,40,198.82 towards prepayment charges. Under protest and for getting the paper released the entire amount was paid. From the statement it is clear that the OP has reversed charges under the head “Service Tax” but has charged a sum of Rs.14,129.47 under the head “Loan Closure”. A sum of Rs.19,640.96 was more charged under loan closure but the same was refunded later on. The OP has charged a sum of Rs.8,93,437.17 in excess and they have also charged a sum of Rs.1,51,308.72 towards the pre-payment charges despite the fact that the complainant was compelled to avail the services of another bank due to high rate of interest. It is under these circumstances the complainant has sought refund of Rs.10,44,745.89 altogether with interest @ 12.75% and compensation of Rs.55,000/- for harassment, tension and agony undergone by the complainant and Rs.11,000/- as cost of litigation.”

2. The District Commission after taking into consideration the material available on record passed the judgment dated 23.01.2012, whereby it held as under:

“The Ld. Counsel for the respondent has raised the plea of territorial jurisdiction and it has been alleged that the office of the respondent located in Central Delhi and this Forum has not territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present complainant. This has been controverted by the Ld. Counsel for the complainant by placing reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble State Commission wherein it has been held that Delhi being Union Territory is one district and every consumer has the right to choose the place of instituting a complain according to his own convenience, if the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisd