STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.

Date of institution : 01.02.2023 Reserved on : 12.01.2026 Date of Decision : 02.02.2026

1. Tata Capital Financial Services Limited, One Forbes, Dr.V.B.

Gandhi Marg, Mumbai-400 001 through its Manager/Authorized Signatory.

2. Tata Capital Financial Services Limited, SCO 143, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana through its Managing Director/Authorized Signatory, through Deepak Verma.

….Appellants/Opposite Parties Versus Manjeet Lamba s/o Sh.Pritpal Singh R/o House No.642, Near Dukhniwaran Gurudwara, Prem Nagar, Ludhiana, Punjab.

….…Respondent/Complainant First Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the order dated 18.11.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ludhiana in CC No.255 of 2019.

Quorum:-

Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary, President Ms. Simarjot Kaur, Member

1) Whether Reporters of the Newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No

2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No

3) Whether judgment should be reported in the Digest?

Yes/No Present:-

For the appellants : Sh. Sandeep Suri, Advocate For respondent : Sh. Vansh Chawla, Advocate SIMARJOT KAUR, MEMBER :

The Appellants/Opposite Parties No.1&2 have filed the present Appeal to challenge the impugned order dated 18.11.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ludhiana (in short, “the District Commission”), whereby the Complaint filed by the Complainant had been allowed

2. It would be apposite to mention here that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as were arrayed before the District Commission.

3. Briefly, the facts of the case as made out by the Complainant in the Complaint filed before the District Commission are that the Complainant had availed two Home Equity Loans from the opposite parties bearing account No.7260382 (hereinafter called Home Equity Loan No.1) for Rs.20,10,000/- and second loan bearing account No.7016333 (hereinafter called Home Equity Loan No.2) for Rs.36,00,000/-. The said loan was to be repaid in 180 installments. Further, it had been stated that he was assured by the representative of the opposite parties that in case of foreclosure/prepayment of the said loans, the foreclosure charges would not be charged from the Complainant. According to the Complainant, several blank Forms/Papers were got signed by the opposite parties from him including the loan agreement. The Complainant had received welcome letter from the opposite parties on 28.02.2017 with regard to loan account No.7016333 and on 28.04.2017 and also for the other loan account No.7260382. It had been further alleged by the Complainant that after paying the installments for a period for more than one year, the Complainant had decided to re-pay the balance loan amount of the said two loan accounts. Thereafter, he had requested OPs for issuance of NOC. However, the opposite parties had illegally demanded foreclosure charges. Ultimately, the Complainant was compelled to pay the foreclosure charges amounting to Rs.1,38,059.86 for loan account No.701633 and Rs.77,475.40 for loan account No.7260382. Hence, the Complaint was filed by the Complainant with the prayer to issue directions to the OPs to reimburse the foreclosure charges alongwith interest @18% per annum from the opposite parties for indulging in ‘unfair trade practice’ and ‘deficiency in service’. Further to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- for causing mental pain and agony and litigation charges of Rs.11,000/-.

4. Upon issuance of notice of the Complaint, opposite parties did not appear and were proceeded against ex-parte on 25.10.2019 and 20.01.2020. Opposite party No.1 had filed Revision Petition No.23 of 2020 before this Commission, Chandigarh against the order dated 20.01.2020 and this Commission had allowed the said revision petition and set aside the ex-parte order dated 20.01.2020. The opposite party No.1 was given opportunity to file written statement/reply and evidence within