Maharashtra Police Housing and Welfare Corporation Ltd. vs. State Bank of India Home Finance Ltd. dated 2009-04-17
Processing fee @ 2% of the loan amount---It is clear from the correspondence on record that the rigour of the due diligence process and professional/administrative resources required to be deployed by the OP in examining the complainant’s loan proposal were of a minimal order. This alone can explain the OP’s insistence on GoM guarantee for repayment of the loan. Had it been otherwise, the OP would not have agreed to sanction so quickly a comparatively large loan to the complainant, which had very limited sources of own revenue and was patently dependent on the funds and/or guarantees made available by the GoM to service market debts. The short point, therefore, is that a processing fee @ 2% of the loan amount, on top of an interest rate of 17% per annum for a loan backed by GoM guarantee as well as equitable mortgage towards security of repayment, was hardly justified. We also notice that the OP did not specifically mention at any point of time that the fee was non-refundable. Further, the complainant’s contention regarding the HDFC Ltd. charging a processing fee @ 1% of the loan amount remained unrebutted. On the other hand, it reflects rather poorly on the financial management of the complainant that all these notwithstanding, it did accept the OP’s loan terms and was later unable to meet the main condition to furnish GoM guarantee---considering the totality of the situation, we feel it would meet the ends of justice if the OP refunds Rs. 10 lakh (i.e., half of the processing fee) to the complainant out of Rs. 20 lakh that it charged. Accordingly, we partly allow the complaint and direct the OP to refund to the complainant Rs. 10 lakh within four weeks from the date of this order. Given the circumstances, we are not inclined to award any interest on this refund. However, if the amount is not refunded within the period allowed, it would carry interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order till payment. read more +
Jayanta Dasgupta vs. Binata Debnath dated 2009-04-15 Document ID: LANCDRC2009D1501
Appeal against the order directing the appellant to refund the sum of Pounds Sterling (£)9,500 to the complainant with interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of the order---appellant was guilty of gross deficiency in service as well as repeated misrepresentation amounting to unfair trade practice under sections 2(1)(o) and 2(1)(r), read with section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. To that extent, we uphold the order of the State Commission that having himself received the entire sum of £9,500 from the complainant, the appellant alone is liable, on his own showing, to refund that sum with a reasonable rate of interest. However, ordering that refund in Pounds Sterling would not be justified. It was, after all, for the complainant and her husband, both clearly educated enough, to insist on opening an appropriate bank account to receive the foreign exchange remittances for eventually purchasing the flat, in accordance with the RBI and Income Tax regulations in this behalf---appellant shall refund to the complainant the sum of Rs. 5.25 lakh with interest @ 18% per annum from 1st July 1997 upto the date of actual payment. The appellant shall make this payment within six weeks of the date of this order, failing which he shall be liable to pay interest on the entire defaulted amount @ 18% per annum. In addition, the appellant shall pay Rs. 50,000/- as costs to the complainant within the same period of six weeks from the date of this order. read more +
