STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.

Date of institution : 27.05.2024 Reserved on : 29.01.2026 Date of Decision : 11.02.2026

1. Vinay Thapar aged about 56 years son of Shri Vijay Kumar Thapar C/o Maa Bhawani Ornaments, Shop No.1, 1^st Floor, Kharadian Bazar, Near Radha Krishan Jeweller, Ludhiana-141003 (Aadhar No.432296978178)

2. Smt.Komal Thapar aged about 54 years w/o Shri Vijay Thapar C/o Maa Bhawani Ornaments, Shop No.1, 1^st Floor, Kharadian Bazar, Near Radha Krishan Jeweller, Ludhiana-141003 (Aadhar No.816505215301)

3. Maa Bhawani Ornaments, Shop No.1, 1^st Floor, Kharadian Bazar, Ludhiana through its Proprietor Vinay Thapar s/o Shri Vijay Kumar Thapar.

….Appellants/Complainants.

Versus

1. HDFC Bank Ltd., Branch Plot No.B-19-65/SE, The Mall, Lower Ground Floor-1, 1^st Mall, Ludhiana-141001 through its Branch Manager.

2. HDFC Bank Ltd., having its registered office at HDFC Bank House, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai-

400013 through its Chairman.

….…Respondents/Opposite parties.

First Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the order dated 19.04.2024 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ludhiana in CC No.466 of 2019.

Quorum:-

Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary, President Ms. Simarjot Kaur, Member Mr. Vishav Kant Garg, 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.Vinay Thapar, in person For the Respondents : Sh.Bhawan Deep Jindal, Advocate SIMARJOT KAUR, MEMBER :

The Appellants/Complainants have filed the present Appeal to challenge the impugned order dated 19.04.2024 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ludhiana (in short, “the District Commission”), whereby the Complaint filed by the Complainants had been dismissed

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 Complainants in the Complaint filed before the District Commission are that Complainant No.1 obtained a loan for earning his livelihood and Complainant No.2 was the guarantor of the loan. The loan amount of Rs.12,50,000/- @12% P.A. was granted by OP No.1. It was repayable in total 120 months in equal monthly installments of Rs.17,934/-each. The last installment was payable on 07.06.2020 as per schedule No.1 provided by the OPs. The OPs had also obtained signatures of the Complainant No.1 on some blank papers. The Complainant No.1 had paid the installments regularly up to August 2019. The Complainant No.1 had received letter dated 12.06.2019 sent by the OPs mentioning that the period to repay the said loan had been extended from 120 months to 145 months. He was further asked to pay the installments/EMIs in 145 months. Further, the rate of interest was also enhanced from 12% to 14.75% w.e.f. 2015. This was done without any rhyme and reason or any legal right. This act of the OPs was brought to knowledge of the Complainants in June 2019 entitling the OPs to the extract of Rs.4,50,000/- from him in order to enrich themselves. The Complainants had further stated that the rates of interests had come down and had been reduced by Reserve Bank of India as well as the REPO Rate had also been reduced by the RBI for the Banks. The rates of interest by RBI are statutory in nature and are binding upon all the Financial Institutions. The OPs could not have gone beyond the rate prescribed by RBI. Said act of the OPs amounts to be a case of ‘unfair trade practice’ and ‘deficiency in service’. Hence, the Complainants had prayed to issue directions to the OPs to realize the EMI's up to 07.06.2020 as agreed between the parties in the Loan Agreement. Further to levy interest charges on loan as prescribed by Govt. of India/RBI i.e. less than 8% per annum. The Co