Decided on December 24,2014



Gurdev Singh, J - (1.) THE appellant/complainant has preferred this appeal against the order dated 26.4.2012 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Moga (in short, "District Forum"), vide which the complaint filed by him under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, for directing the respondent/opposite party to refund Rs. 1,00,373, received by it in excess at the time of sanctioning of the loan, along with interest from the date of receipt of that amount till the realization thereof and to pay Rs. 50,000, as compensation on account of deficiency in service, was dismissed. As per the allegations made in his complaint, the complainant approached the opposite party for loan, which was sanctioned and at the time of the sanctioning of the loan it charged Rs. 5,000, as documentary charge, Rs. 86,000 as upfront fee, Rs. 515 as DOC charges and Rs. 8,858 as upper fee (totaling Rs. 1,00,373) and that fact was mentioned in the statement of account. As per the Scheme, under which the loan was sanctioned, the opposite party was not entitled to levy any such charges and those were wrongly charged from him. This act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service; which caused mental tension and harassment to him and for the same he is entitled to Rs. 50,000, as compensation. He is entitled to the refund of the above said amount, along with interest. He prayed for the issuance of directions accordingly to the opposite party.
(2.) THE complaint was contested by the opposite party by filing the written reply before the District Forum. In that written reply, while disputing the allegations made in the complaint, it pleaded that the complainant had availed term loan of Rs. 86,00,000 and Cash Credit limit of Rs. 20,00,000 from it and while issuing the sanction letter dated 23.2.2010, para 6(g) from the terms and conditions could not be deleted inadvertently. Accordingly corrigendum letter dated 27.2.2010 was delivered to the complainant clarifying the position that the processing fee, up front fee, documentation and mortgage charges would be levied/applicable. All the contents of that letter were read over and explained to the complainant and after admitting those to be correct the said charges were debited in his account. He was fully aware of the fact that those charges were payable by him. The complainant got transferred his account to Punjab National Bank and at that time he had given an undertaking admitting that he was fully satisfied with the terms and conditions of this Bank and had no dispute with it on any related issue/charges, which were realized from him and he also undertook not to file any matter in any Court of law regarding any issue/charges. That itself shows that he had the knowledge that the above said charges had been correctly levied by it and were payable by him. He is now estopped by his act and conduct from filing the present complaint. He has no locus standi to file the same and the same is not maintainable. He is not entitled to any such refund and there was no such deficiency in service on its part entitling the complainant to ask for compensation. He has no cause of action against it. It prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with special costs. Both the sides produced evidence in support of their respective averments before the District Forum, which after going through the same and hearing learned Counsel on their behalf dismissed the complaint, vide aforesaid order.
(3.) WE have heard learned Counsel for the respondent/opposite party, as no one appeared on behalf of the appellant/complainant at the time of arguments. We have carefully gone through the records of the case.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.