STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION U.T., CHANDIGARH [ADDITIONAL BENCH]

Appeal No. : 289 of 2025 Date of Institution : 13.10.2025 Date of Decision : 09.03.2026 Pushp Khurana w/o Late Sh. Virander Kumar, aged about 86 years, resident of House No. 1536, Sector 34-D, Chandigarh …Appellant/Complainant Versus Union Bank of India, through its authorised representative, having its office at SCO 463-464, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh-160022 …Respondent/Opposite Party ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appeal No. : 288 of 2025 Date of Institution : 13.10.2025 Date of Decision : 09.03.2026 Virander Kumar HUF through its Member as well as Authorised Representative Sh. Vineet Khurana, son of Late Sh. Virander Kumar, aged about 57 years, resident of House No. 1536, Sector 34-D, Chandigarh …Appellant/Complainant Versus Union Bank of India, through its authorised representative, having its office at SCO 463-464, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh-160022 …Respondent/Opposite Party BEFORE: MRS. PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER SH. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER ARGUED BY :-

Sh. Rahul Bansal, Advocate for the appellant Sh. Ajay Singla, Advocate for the respondents PER RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER Vide this common order we are disposing of above captioned appeals i.e. FA/289/2025 & FA/288/2025 filed by respective complainants, namely, Pushp Khurana and Virander Kumar HUF, against common order dated 01.09.2025 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as ‘District Commission’) vide which, their respective consumer complaints bearing No.143 of 2025 and 144 of 2025 have been partly allowed against the opposite parties (respondents herein) by granting following relief:-

“5. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, both consumer complaint captioned above succeed, the same are hereby partly allowed and OP is directed as under:-

i. To refund the complainant the excess amount charged on OD account in both the complaints as detailed in para 1 above with interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint onwards.

ii. to pay a lumpsum amount of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant in both the complaint on account of compensation towards mental and physical harassment and costs of litigation.

6. This order be complied with by the OP within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, it shall make the payment of the principal amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization.”

2] Since the District Commission took the facts from the file of Consumer Complaint No.143 of 2025 titled as ‘Pushp Khurana vs.

Union Bank of India and anr.’, as common question of law and facts were involved in these two complaints, therefore, for the sake of brevity, we shall also take up the file of FA/289/2025 in order to decide these two appeals by this common order.

3] It was the case of the complainant (appellant herein) (Pushp Khurana W/o Late Sh. Virander Kumar in CC/143/2025 titled ‘Pushp Khurana Vs. Union Bank of India) before the District Commission that the complainant, maintaining several bank accounts with Corporation Bank, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh, now merged with Union Bank of India, Sector 35-C Branch, Chandigarh, also held an FDR bearing No.530101344201561 for an amount of Rs.50,00,000/- carrying interest @7.25% with an auto-renewal clause. Against the said FDR, she was sanctioned an Overdraft facility on 11.08.2017 vide OD Account No.560131000106475 at an agreed rate of interest only 1% higher than the interest payable on the FDR; however, the opposite party (respondent herein) deliberately charged interest at rates higher than agreed, resulting in excess interest of Rs.71,852/- up to 30.06.2020, out of which, only partial reversals were made and excess interest of Rs.51,389/- remained outstanding. Simultaneously, the opposite party also credited interest on the FDR at a rate