Collecting More Amount Than Agreed Amount As EMI: NCDRC Holds Central Bank Of India Liable For Deficiency In Service
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Inder Jit Singh held that a bank cannot change the agreed EMI amount on its own. Furthrmore, It was also held that a plea cannot be raise later in a subsequent higher court if it hasn't been raised in the initial pleadings and no related issue are framed on it. Brief Facts of the Case The complainant, an employee...
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Inder Jit Singh held that a bank cannot change the agreed EMI amount on its own. Furthrmore, It was also held that a plea cannot be raise later in a subsequent higher court if it hasn't been raised in the initial pleadings and no related issue are framed on it.
Brief Facts of the Case
The complainant, an employee of Hindustan Aeronautics Lucknow, had loan installments with Central Bank/Bank, which was deducted from his salary account without default. Originally set to end on June 30, 2015, the bank increased the monthly installment from Rs. 7,566 to Rs. 8,766 without explanation. This unilateral action was deemed illegal, constituting unfair trade practice and service deficiency by the complainant. Despite this, the complainant complied with the increased payments, settling the loan. However, upon requesting their documents, the bank withheld them, causing distress. The complainant filed a complaint in the District Forum which was allowed. Aggrieved by this, the Bank appealed in the State Commission but the appeal was rejected. Consequently, the bank filed a revision petition before the National Commission.
Contentions of the Bank
The bank asserted that there had been a simple calculation mistake in determining the EMI amount, which had led to the discrepancy between the actual EMI and the amount stated in the District Forum's decision. According to the terms and conditions of the Loan Agreement, the correct EMI amount was claimed to be Rs. 8,566, not Rs. 7,566. Contrary to the District Forum's conclusion, it was argued that there had been no increase in the agreed-upon interest rate. The Statement of Account submitted before the District Forum was cited to support this claim, indicating that the interest rate had remained consistent throughout the loan tenure. The bank highlighted Article 2.6(c) of the Loan Agreement, which granted the bank the authority to adjust the EMI amount to ensure timely repayment of the loan.
Observations by the Commission
The Commission observed that the contention put forth by the bank , that the correct EMI amount was Rs. 8,776, was unsubstantiated, as the loan agreement explicitly specified the EMI amount as Rs. 7,566. Furthermore, the bank's acknowledgment and acceptance of the lower EMI amount for a significant duration of 82 months established their error in calculation, constituting a deficiency in service on the part of the bank. Furthermore, the bank did not raise the plea of mistake before District Forum or State Commission. The commission cited the ruling in Deepak Tandon & Anr. vs. Rajesh Kumar Gupta which held that if a plea wasn't raised in the initial pleadings and no findings were made by the lower courts, it couldn't be raised later in a higher court due to a lack of factual basis.
In conclusion, the Commission agreed with the findings of the State Commission and District Forum, and found no reason to interfere with the same. Hence, the revision petition was dismissed.
Case Title: Central Bank of India Vs. Somir Kumar Bagchi
Case Number: R. P. No. 1523/2019