HDFC BANK LTD. Vs. SATISH GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition filed under Sec. 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the 'Act') assails the order of the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh (in short, 'State Commission') in Appeal No. 202 of 2012 dtd. 9/5/2014 arising out of order dtd. 26/12/2008 in complaint no. 8/829 of 2008 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Patiala (in short, 'District Forum').

(2.) The facts of the case as per documents on record are that the petitioner/bank started a scheme known as 'KVP Margin Funding' under which the applicant was required to deposit an amount of margin money with the bank. The bank in turn would advance nine times the amount of the margin money as loan to the applicant and procure Kisan Vikas Patras (KVPs) on behalf of the applicant and retain the same till maturity after 8 years and 7 months. During this period the value of the KVPs was expected to double and thereby offer interest higher than the interest that would be charged by the bank on the loan amount. Through a Customer Approval Sheet (CAS) provided by the bank it was specifically stated that the rate of interest would be 7% without any processing fee. The respondent accordingly opened an account with a cheque of Rs.10.00 lakhs on 29/9/2005. An agreement was signed between the petitioner bank and the respondent and a loan of Rs.90.00 lakhs was credited to the account of the respondent. This amount was encashed on 18/10/2005 and the KVPs purchased from the Post Office. However, the amount of commission received from the Post Office was not credited to the said account. The Overdraft (O/D) limit of Rs.200.00 lakhs as agreed to in the Customer Approval Sheet dtd. 20/10/2005 was also not provided. The rate of interest charged was @ 9.75% w.e.f. 3/4/2006 which was refunded on 31/8/2006 when protested. However, interest @ 8% continued to be charged on monthly compounding basis against the 7% on monthly compounding basis that was agreed upon. The interest was enhanced to 12% on 22/8/2007 w.e.f. 10/9/2007 which was refunded on 8/12/2007. However, interest @ 8% continued to be charged. The petitioner expressed inability to provide O/D facilities. The petitioner conveyed that the KVPs would be encashed and that the interest amount was contingent upon the holding period of the KVP based upon bonus, which placed the respondents under mental stress. On the grounds of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service, the respondent approached the District Forum which ordered as below on 26/12/2008 after opportunity to both parties:

(3.) As per records, the respondent herein preferred an appeal against the order of the District Forum which was allowed by the State Commission. The order of the State Commission reads as below: