HDFC BANK LTD. Vs. VINOD GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals have been filed under Sec. 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, 'the Act') against the order of the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (in short, 'the State Commission') in CC nos. 43, 44 and 45 of 2016 dtd. 7/12/2017. As these first appeals arise from the same order and pertain to a similar set of facts, they are disposed of by way of a common order. For the sake of convenience FA no.790 of 2018 is taken as the lead case.

(2.) In brief, the relevant facts of the case are that the appellant who is a scheduled Bank had promoted an investment scheme named Kisan Vikas Patra (KVP) Margin Funding Scheme under which 10% of the amount was to be invested by the applicant for the purchase of KVPs and the balance 90% was undertaken to be provided by the appellant Bank as loan under the KVP Margin Funding Scheme. The investors were assured of getting return of 21.01% or tax free return of 13.65% after 103 months as per the flow chart prepared by the appellant. The interest rate chargeable by the appellant on the 90% margin fund was fixed at 7% and the KVP was to earn interest at 8%. The respondent invested Rs.3.5 lakh on 29/9/2005 as margin money and the appellant sanctioned loan of Rs.31.50 lakh on 29/9/2005 to him to purchase KVPs through the Bank for Rs.35.00 lakhs, which were then pledged as security with the appellant. The appellant informed the respondent subsequently that the rate of interest had been changed from 7 to 7.5 % with retrospective effect from 28/3/2006 and thereafter, on various dates, about the increase of interest rate to 8% with effect from 24/4/2006 and 12% with effect from 20/10/2008. The appellant has stated that the rate of interest was a floating rate of interest and was therefore changed as per the provisions of the scheme.

(3.) The respondent approached the State Commission in CC no. 43 of 2016 on the grounds that despite their protest, the appellant had been arbitrarily charging a higher rate of interest and statement of accounts had been showing negative figures and prayed that the appellant be held deficient in service and for adopting unfair trade practice. Compensation of Rs.20.00 lakh for deficiency in service and mental harassment with directions to refund the excess amount of Rs.20,41,612.00 taken by it along with interest from 20/5/2014 till payment, along with cost of litigation was prayed for.