SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
 
REVISION PETITION NO. 1944 OF 2019
 
(Against the Order dated 12/04/2019 in Appeal No. 683/2018 of the State Commission Punjab)
1. BANK OF BARODA
THROUGH ITS ATTORNEY HOLDER SH. YOGRAJ CHIEF MANAGER, POSTED AT REGINAL OFFICE BHAGWAN MAHAVIR MARG BRANCH,
JALANDHAR
PUNJAB
...........Petitioner(s)
Versus 
1. DR. KAMAL GUPTA & 4 ORS.
S/O. LATE SH. SATYA PAL GUPTA, R/O. 408-A, NEAR JAIN BHAWAN ADARSH NAGAR, KAPURTHALA ROAD,
JALANDHAR
PUNJAB
2. MS. NIKITA GUPTA
D/O. DR. KAMAL GUPTA, R/O. 408-A, NEAR JAIN BHAWAN ADARSH NAGAR, KAPURTHALA ROAD,
JALANDHAR
PUNJAB
3. ANKITA GUPTA
D/O. DR. KAMAL GUPTA, R/O. 408-A, NEAR JAIN BHAWAN ADARSH NAGAR, KAPURTHALA ROAD,
JALANDHAR
PUNJAB
4. DR. RUBY GUPTA
W/O. DR. KAMAL GUPTA, R/O. 408-A, NEAR JAIN BHAWAN ADARSH NAGAR, KAPURTHALA ROAD,
JALANDHAR
PUNJAB
5. JALANDHAR IMPROVEMENT TRUST
THROUGH ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER/CHAIRMAN
JALANDHAR
PUNJAB
...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. PREM NARAIN,PRESIDING MEMBER

For the Petitioner :
Mr.C.S.Pasricha , Advocate
Mr. Visha Ahuja, Advocate
For the Respondent :

Dated : 20 Dec 2019
ORDER

This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Bank of Baroda against the order dated 12.04.2019 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, (in short ‘the State Commission’) passed in MA Nos.2804 of 2018 and 552 of 2019 in FA No.683 of 2018.

2.      Brief facts of the case are that the respondents took a home loan from the petitioner bank.  The petitioner bank charged commercial rate of interest after three years as per circular dated 01.10.2016, which allows bank to charge commercial rate of interest, which is roughly 1.5% higher than the rate on which loan was sanctioned.

3.      The respondents repaid total loan amount even before the expiry of the total period of loan and the bank accepted repayment without any charges for early repayment.  The complainants later on filed a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar, (in short ‘the District Forum’) being Complaint No.217 of 2017 alleging that the bank was not entitled to charge commercial rate of interest on home loan sanctioned to the complainants.  The complaint was resisted by the petitioner bank.  However, the District Forum allowed the complaint vide its order dated 23.10.2018 and directed the opposite parties bank to refund the extra amount charged on the basis of commercial rate of interest.

4.      Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the opposite parties bank/petitioners preferred appeal bearing No.683 of 2018 before the State Commission.  The State Commission vide its order dated 12.04.2019 dismissed the appeal.

5.      Hence the present revision petition.

6.      Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners at the admission stage.  Learned counsel stated that the bank has charged commercial rate of interest as per master circular which became effective from 01.04.2016 issued by the bank head office wherein the following provision is there:

“In case the borrower fails to complete the construction of House within a period of 3 years from the availment of Home Loan, Branch to charge commercial rate of interest [1 year MCLR + Strategic Premium plus maximum band or Base Rate Plus maximum band (if loan is under base rate system), as the case may be, declared by the Bank for commercial purpose prevailing at the time of default] from the date of first disbursement.

In case the borrower could not construct the House within the stipulated period due to circumstances beyond his/her control or genuine difficulties, Zonal Authority is authorised to waive/refund the commercial ROI on case to case basis and strictly on merits.  A suitable undertaking to be obtained from the borrower to construct the House within further period of maximum- 2years without attracting commercial ROI (as per Annexure-29)”

7.      Learned counsel for the petitioner was asked a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top