SUNITA BALI Vs. BRANCH MANAGER, HDFC BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition under Sec. 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the 'Act') assails the order dtd. 20/8/2018 in First Appeal No. 388 of 2018 dtd. 20/8/2018 disposed vide common order in First Appeal No. 401 of 2018 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh (in short, the 'State Commission') dtd. 20/8/2018 allowing the appeal and dismissing order dtd. 18/5/2018 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar (in short, the 'District Forum') in Consumer Complaint no. 17/186 of 2012.

(2.) The facts, in brief, according to the revision petitioners, are that they had obtained a loan of Rs.11.00 lakhs for the marriage of their son from the respondent on 23/5/2015 on floating rate of interest. On 10/7/2015 they approached the respondent bank to foreclose the loan in one instalment. However, the respondent refused to do so stating that foreclosure charges and penal interest would apply, and the loan could be closed only in monthly instalments over 7 years. It is stated that the amount was not accepted in the loan account and instead two fixed deposits of Rs.8.00 lakhs and Rs.2.00 lakhs respectively were opened on 10/7/2015 and 11/7/2015. Thus, while sufficient funds, including amount in the bank account was available, the loan of Rs.10,95,182.75 was not foreclosed. The petitioners were misled into amending the fixed deposits to Rs.8,25,000.00 and Rs.2,75,000.00 on 14/7/2015. Petitioners state that ten months later they became aware of guidelines of Reserve Bank of India (RBI) that banks could not charge foreclosure of loans on floating rates and again approached the respondent bank for foreclosure and also sent an email on 5/3/2017. As there was no response to the request, petitioners approached the District Forum in March 2017 which ordered partially in their favour on 18/5/2017. Both petitioners and the respondent herein approached the State Commission in appeal which, vide the impugned order, dismissed the appeals and upheld the order of the State Commission. Hence this revision petition.

(3.) Heard the petitioner in person and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the records.