Case Title: Central Bank of India Vs. Somir Kumar Bagchi
Case Number: R. P. No. 1523/2019
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, led by Inder Jit Singh, recently ruled that a bank cannot unilaterally alter the agreed EMI amount. Additionally, the Commission declared that an argument can’t be brought up in a higher court if it wasn’t presented in the initial plea.
The case at hand involved an employee of Hindustan Aeronautics Lucknow, who had regular loan installments with the Central Bank being deducted from his salary. The bank unexpectedly increased the monthly installment from Rs. 7,566 to Rs. 8,766 without any clarification. The complainant perceived this as an illegal act, a violation of fair trade practices, and a deficiency in service. Despite the unapproved increase, the complainant cleared the loan. However, the bank refused to return his documents, prompting him to approach the District Forum. The Forum ruled in favor of the complainant, leading the bank to appeal to the State Commission and later the National Commission.
In its defense, the bank claimed that a computational error led to the discrepancy in the EMI amount. It argued that the correct EMI was Rs. 8,566, not Rs. 7,566, as per the loan agreement. The bank maintained that there was no hike in the agreed interest rate and cited the Statement of Account submitted to the District Forum as evidence. The bank also pointed to Article 2.6(c) of the Loan Agreement, which allowed the bank to adjust the EMI value for timely loan repayment.
The Commission, however, found the bank’s argument of Rs. 8,776 as the correct EMI to be unsupported. It pointed out that the loan agreement clearly mentioned the EMI as Rs. 7,566. Moreover, the bank’s acceptance of the lower EMI amount for a significant period of 82 months affirmed their calculation mistake, reflecting a service deficiency. The Commission also noted that the bank failed to present the mistake argument in the District Forum or State Commission. It referred to the precedent set in the Deepak Tandon & Anr. vs. Rajesh Kumar Gupta case, which stated that a plea not raised in the initial pleadings can’t be brought up in a higher court later due to a lack of factual basis.
Ultimately, the Commission endorsed the decisions of the State Commission and District Forum and dismissed the bank’s revision petition. This judgment emphasizes the importance of adhering to agreed contractual terms and upholds the rights of consumers against unilateral changes by service providers.
