HDFC BANK LIMITED Vs. SURINDER KUMAR GOYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 16th of September, 2009 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Union Territory, Chandigarh (State Commission hereinafter for short). The said order was passed in Appeal No. 2272 of 2008 preferred by the present petitioner against the order dated 13th of October, 2008 (this date is wrongly mentioned as 4th of October, 2007 in the order of the State Commission) of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U. T. , Chandigarh (District Forum for short). The District Forum by the said order had allowed the complaint of the respondent herein awarding the following reliefs:-

(2.) Aggrieved thereupon, the present petitioner-opposite party-Bank had preferred an appeal against the order of the District Forum, which has been dismissed by the State Commission with a cost of Rs. 5000/-. Further aggrieved, the petitioner-opposite party-Bank has filed this revision petition.

(3.) The facts of the case as culled out from the records are that the respondent-complainant was lured/attracted by a scheme known as "KVP Margin Funding" floated by the petitioner-opposite party-Bank. Under the scheme, an applicant was required to deposit certain amount of margin money, whereupon the Bank was to advance 9 times the value of the margin money as loan and procure the KVPs on behalf of the applicant and keep them in its custody till maturity, which was 8 years and 7 months. The value of the KPVs was to increase by 100% during this period. The charm of the scheme was that the KVPs were to give a return in the form of interest which was to be higher than the percentage of interest to be charged by the Bank on the loan amount. The respondent-complainant was informed and in fact in the 'customer approval sheet' it was clearly stated that the rate of interest would be 7% and further that there will be no processing fee. The respondent-complainant in this case had given a cheque for Rs. 10.00 Lakhs on the 7th of September, 2005 to the petitioner-opposite party-Bank for the purchase of KVPs and the same had been encashed on the 9th of September, 2005. An agreement had been signed between the parties with regard to the loan on the 10th of September, 2005. The grievance of the respondent-complainant before the District Forum was that while the petitioner-opposite party-Bank was entitled to charge only 7% rate of interest on the amount of loan availed by him, he suddenly discovered that the Bank had been charging interest @ 8% per annum, which was clearly a breach of undertaking and understanding that was given to him at the time of alluring him to join the scheme. When this was brought to the notice of the petitioner-opposite party-Bank with a request not to charge interest at a higher rate, the petitioner-opposite party-Bank came out with extraneous reasons and explanations as to why the charging of interest @ 8% was justified. A complaint thereafter came to be filed before the District Forum, who, as stated earlier, allowed the complaint. The appeal that was filed before the State Commission had been dismissed by the State Commission with a detailed order.