Dr. C.B. Singh Vs. Hdfc Bank and Another - Court Judgment

K.C. Gupta, President:

1. This appeal has been directed by the complainant against order dated 26.11.2008 passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as District Consumer Forum) whereby his complaint was dismissed as meritless.

2. Briefly stated the facts are that the appellant (complainant) entered into a loan agreement with the respondents for taking loan of Rs. 5,90,000 for purchasing vehicle @ 11.87% and the loan agreement was executed on 5.1.2008. He had paid Rs. 25,666 to Saluja Motors towards margin money but respondent No. 1 showed the same as two advance EMIs. It was also averred that in fact loan was taken @ 10.59% and not 11.87% and the amount of EMI was Rs. 2,154 and not 2,175 per lac. The appellant also mentioned certain other irregularities.

3. Alleging deficiency in service, complaint was filed.

4. Respondent No. 1 filed reply and stated that it had charged agreed rate of interest @ 11.87% monthly reducing as per agreement and no offer was ever made to charge interest @ 10.59%. It denied that it had sent respondent No. 2 to the appellant to complete the formalities. In fact it dealt with respondent No. 2 on principal to principal basis. It was next stated that appellant had applied and agreed to loan of Rs. 5,90,000 which was repayable in 60 instalments with first instalment being Rs. 25,666 (equivalent to two advance instalments) and the remaining 59 instalments were of the value of Rs. 12,833 each and the same were found mentioned in the repayment schedule. Respondent No. 1 next admitted that the bank had agreed to provide different rates of interest to different people depending upon credit worthiness of every person and other various factors.

5. Respondent No. 2 also filed written reply controverting allegations of the appellant and stated that the appellant had approached for loan of Rs. 5,90,000 for the purchase of Ford Fusion Car and it gave proposed EMI of Rs. 12,833 which was accepted by the appellant with two advance EMIs of Rs. 12,833 and balance 58 instalments were to be paid on 5th of every month. It further stated that the amount of two advance instalments was not paid to it or respondent No. 1 but was paid to the dealer on 7.1.2008 and wrongly mentioned as on account of margin money and in fact it was on account of two advance EMIs.

Parties adduced their evidence by way of affidavit.

6. After hearing Counsel for the parties, District Consumer Forum vide order dated 26.11.2008 dismissed the complaint.

7. Aggrieved by the said order, complainant has filed the present appeal.

8. We have heard Counsel for appellant Sh. M.S. Kohli, Advocate and gone through the file carefully.

9. There is no evidence that respondents had agreed to charge interest on the loan amount of Rs. 5,90,000 @ 10.59% but on the other hand there was an agreement to charge interest @ 11.87% on the reducing monthly loan amount. Two instalments of Rs. 25,666 were taken in advance of Rs. 12,833 each and the remaining amount of Rs. 5,64,334 was to be paid in 58 monthly instalments of Rs. 12,833 . Thus, EMI charged is perfectly in accordance with the agreement . If the appellant feels that proper rate of interest has not been charged and that EMIs were wrong then he should have filed civil suit or writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India stating that the bank had been discriminating between different debtors and charging different rate of interest. However, such matter does not lie in the Consumer Fora because Consumer Fora is to allow interest as agreed. It is not the case that the appellant had not paid EMI @ Rs. 12,833. Thus, whole claim in the complaint filed by the appellant is merit less and had been rightly dismissed

10. We concur with the reasoning given by the District Consumer Forum and hold that there is no force in the appeal. Consequently, it is dismissed in limine.

11. Copies of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge.