State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Vinay Thapar vs Hdfc Bank Ltd on 11 February, 2026
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.238 of 2024
Date of institution : 27.05.2024
Reserved on : 29.01.2026
Date of Decision : 11.02.2026
1. Vinay Thapar aged about 56 years son of Shri Vijay Kumar Thapar
C/o Maa Bhawani Ornaments, Shop No.1, 1st Floor, Kharadian
Bazar, Near Radha Krishan Jeweller, Ludhiana-141003 (Aadhar
No.432296978178)
2. Smt.Komal Thapar aged about 54 years w/o Shri Vijay Thapar C/o
Maa Bhawani Ornaments, Shop No.1, 1st Floor, Kharadian Bazar,
Near Radha Krishan Jeweller, Ludhiana-141003 (Aadhar
No.816505215301)
3. Maa Bhawani Ornaments, Shop No.1, 1st Floor, Kharadian Bazar,
Ludhiana through its Proprietor Vinay Thapar s/o Shri Vijay Kumar
Thapar.
....Appellants/Complainants.
Versus
1. HDFC Bank Ltd., Branch Plot No.B-19-65/SE, The Mall, Lower
Ground Floor-1, 1st Mall, Ludhiana-141001 through its Branch
Manager.
2. HDFC Bank Ltd., having its registered office at HDFC Bank
House, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai-
400013 through its Chairman.
.......Respondents/Opposite parties.
First Appeal under Section 41 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 2019
against the order dated 19.04.2024
passed by the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission,
Ludhiana in CC No.466 of 2019.
FA No.238 of 2024 2
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary, President
Ms. Simarjot Kaur, Member
Mr. Vishav Kant Garg, Member
1) Whether Reporters of the Newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No
2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No
3) Whether judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Yes/No Present:-
For the Appellants : Sh.Vinay Thapar, in person For the Respondents : Sh.Bhawan Deep Jindal, Advocate SIMARJOT KAUR, MEMBER :
The Appellants/Complainants have filed the present Appeal to challenge the impugned order dated 19.04.2024 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ludhiana (in short, "the District Commission"), whereby the Complaint filed by the Complainants had been dismissed.
2. It would be apposite to mention here that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as were arrayed before the District Commission.
3. Briefly, the facts of the case as made out by the Complainants in the Complaint filed before the District Commission are that Complainant No.1 obtained a loan for earning his livelihood and Complainant No.2 was the guarantor of the loan. The loan amount of Rs.12,50,000/- @12% P.A. was granted by OP No.1. It was repayable in total 120 months in equal monthly installments of Rs.17,934/-each. The last installment was payable on 07.06.2020 as FA No.238 of 2024 3 per schedule No.1 provided by the OPs. The OPs had also obtained signatures of the Complainant No.1 on some blank papers. The Complainant No.1 had paid the installments regularly up to August 2019. The Complainant No.1 had received letter dated 12.06.2019 sent by the OPs mentioning that the period to repay the said loan had been extended from 120 months to 145 months. He was further asked to pay the installments/EMIs in 145 months. Further, the rate of interest was also enhanced from 12% to 14.75% w.e.f. 2015. This was done without any rhyme and reason or any legal right. This act of the OPs was brought to knowledge of the Complainants in June 2019 entitling the OPs to the extract of Rs.4,50,000/- from him in order to enrich themselves. The Complainants had further stated that the rates of interests had come down and had been reduced by Reserve Bank of India as well as the REPO Rate had also been reduced by the RBI for the Banks. The rates of interest by RBI are statutory in nature and are binding upon all the Financial Institutions. The OPs could not have gone beyond the rate prescribed by RBI. Said act of the OPs amounts to be a case of 'unfair trade practice' and 'deficiency in service'. Hence, the Complainants had prayed to issue directions to the OPs to realize the EMI's up to 07.06.2020 as agreed between the parties in the Loan Agreement. Further to levy interest charges on loan as prescribed by Govt. of India/RBI i.e. less than 8% per annum. The Complainants had further prayed to restrain the OPs to realize the amount of EMI by electronically deducting from Bank account or from presenting the blank cheques taken in advance for EMIs. In addition to it, the OPs be directed to calculate the FA No.238 of 2024 4 present rate of interest @ less than 8%. Further to adjust the amount of interest and principal amount w.e.f. 2015 to the agreed rate of interest @12% per annum and not 14.75% per annum. Directions be issued to the OPs to accept the installments on old rate of interest/EMIs. The Complainants had also prayed for compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- along with Rs.50,000/- as cost of the Complaint.
4. Upon issuance of notice of the Complaint, none had appeared on behalf of the OPs despite service and as such, the OPs were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 23.12.2019.
5. The OPs had preferred a Revision Petition No.1475 of 2020 before this Commission for condonation of delay of 163 days in filing the revision petition and for setting aside ex-parte order dated 23.12.2019. The said revision petition was dismissed by this Commission.
6. Subsequently, the OPs had filed Revision Petition No.1172 of 2020 before Hon'ble National Commission, New Delhi challenging the order dated 19.10.2020 passed by this Commission. The said Revision Petition was dismissed by Hon'ble National Commission vide its order dated 01.09.2023.
7. By considering the averments made in the Complaint, the Complaint filed by the Complainants was dismissed vide order dated 19.04.2024 passed by the District Commission. The relevant part of said order is reproduced as under:-
FA No.238 of 2024 5
"13. As a result of above discussion, the Complaint is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merits. However, there shall be no order as to costs."
8. The Appellants/Complainants have filed the present Appeal being aggrieved by the order dated 19.04.2024 passed by the District Commission by raising a number of arguments.
9. Misc.Application No.991 of 2025 (Additional Evidence) This Application has been filed by the Appellants/Complainants for placing on record the documents by way of Additional Evidence. Appellants have placed on record Annexures i.e. AE01, AE02, AE02R, AE03, AE 04 and Certificate U/s 63 of Bharatiya Sakshya Abhiniyam. The Appellants/Complainants have also placed on record said additional documents by way of aforesaid annexures to prove that initially the Home/Consumer Loans bearing No.15543239 and No.15543260 dated 02.09.2008 taken from Citi Financial Consumer Finance India Ltd. Presently known as Citicorp Finance (India) for the purpose of purchasing the property of the shop for earning their livelihood for the family. The other annexures are photocopies of the registry of the property purchased with the loan amount, the copy of the loan repayment statement of the above- mentioned loans to Citi Financial Consumer Finance India Ltd., the copy of the loan Closure letter of the said Loans, the copy of the Acknowledgement for the property papers released along with the details of the property documents held under the loan mortgage. The FA No.238 of 2024 6 repayment schedule of 146 installments drawn by HDFC Bank Ltd. Dated 21.06.2010 has also been annexed by way of additional evidence. An audio recording of conversation of Helpline personnel of HDFC Bank Ltd with Complainant No.1 on 13.07.2019 has also been tendered into evidence. The photocopies of the letters received by the Appellants from OPs. The photocopies of the Bank Statements of the accounts of Maa Bhawani Ornaments in HDFC Bank as well as in Allahabad Bank i.e. Appellants No.3 have been filed to prove their case in the interest of justice.
10. The Respondents-OPs have filed written reply to the above said miscellaneous application No.991 of 2025 mentioning therein that all the documents filed by the Appellants/Complainants as additional evidence were already in possession and were in knowledge of Complainants at the time of filing of Complaint. However, he had failed to place it on record before District Commission for the best reasons known to them. Further, the Appellants have not mentioned any reason in the application as to why he had not brought on record the documents before the District Commission. As per the facts and circumstances stated above and material placed on record, present Application be dismissed with exemplary costs, in the interest of justice.
11. The M.A.No.991 of 2025 (Additional Evidence) was allowed vide order dated 29.01.2026 by this Commission in interest of justice.
FA No.238 of 2024 7
12. Mr. Vinay Thapar, Appellant No.1/Complainant No.1 has argued on the similar lines as mentioned in the written reply. Appellants No.1 has submitted that he was approached by HDFC Bank officials at his shop for takeover of loan which he had obtained from CITI Financial Consumer Finance India Limited. Said existing loan was repayable in 180 instalments, out of which 20 instalments had already been paid, a total of 160 instalments remained outstanding at that time. HDFC Bank had offered to take over the loan by reducing the balance tenure to repay the loan in 120 instalments at nearly the same EMI (which was being paid to Citi Financial Consumer Finance India Ltd.). The offer was attractive and the Appellants had accepted the same.
13. Subsequently, HDFC Bank had fraudulently converted the Consumer/Home Loan into a business loan without proper disclosure, with the mala-fide intention. They had increased the number of instalments and EMIs of the said loan. It was alleged that the Consumer/Home Loan was converted into business loan to deprive the Appellants to avail remedies under the Consumer Protection Act. The Firm of the Appellants was wrongly involved. Furthermore, the wife of the Appellant, Smt. Komal Thapar was made co-borrower instead of a guarantor. The OPs had unlawfully trapped the entire family. Despite it was further mentioned that against the loan amount of ₹12,50,000, property worth over ₹70 lakhs was mortgaged. Contrary to the agreed 120 instalments, HDFC Bank later unilaterally increased the repayment schedule to 146 FA No.238 of 2024 8 instalments, without any written consent or intimation. By issuing two conflicting repayment schedules dated 21/06/2010 and 23/06/2010 the OPs themselves exposed that the OPs had pre-planned to cheat the Complainants. Even after reduction in RBI REPO Rates, there was no reduction in EMIs to be paid by the Complainants. This act of OPs was a case of 'unfair trade practice' on their part.
14. Originally, Consumer/Home Loans were obtained from Citi Financial Consumer Finance India Ltd. presently known as Citicorp Finance (India) for purchase of immovable property, which is still owned by Mrs. Komal Thapar. It was reiterated that the loan amount was used for earning his livelihood. All documents i.e. Certified copies, Repayment Schedules, NOC and Loan Closure Documents obtained later (tendered by way of additional evidence) establish this fact. These crucial documents could not be produced earlier due to denial of opportunity by the District Consumer Commission. It was a clear violation of principles of natural justice on part of District Commission by not allowing rebuttal or placing the additional evidence on record. The District Commission had wrongly decided the Complaint without any application of its mind. He has prayed that the Appeal may be accepted and the order dated 19.04.2024 passed by District Commission be set-aside.
15. Mr.Bhawan Deep Jindal, Advocate, learned Counsel for the Respondents/OPs has submitted that the Complainants are not 'Consumers' as the loan was granted to the Firm of the Complainants namely Maa Bhawani Ornaments which does not fall FA No.238 of 2024 9 within the definition of 'Consumer'. The Firm-Maa Bhawani Ornaments along with other Co-Applicants Vinay Thapar and Komal Thapar had taken commercial loan from Bank for using it in the said business for the purpose of earning huge profits. Further, the Complainants/Appellants had also mentioned in the loan agreement in the Schedule 1 at Point No.12 that "Purpose of Loan" as "Business". Further the Complainants have also given a declaration in the loan agreement that he has taken loan exclusively for business purposes.
16. At the time of availing the said loan, the Complainants had opted for 'Floating Rate of Interest' and the Complainants were well aware of said fact. The Complainants had signed all the documents in respect of said loan in favour of Bank opting for "Floating Rate of Interest" after understanding terms and conditions of loan agreement. The Bank had only charged the rate of interest at the agreed terms and conditions of the Loan Agreement.
17. The increase in tenure of loan was in line with the terms and conditions of the loan as mentioned in Clause (B) of Schedule 2 of the Loan Agreement (Annexure R-2).
18. As a banking practice, the revision of rate of interest is also updated by OPs on the website of the Bank for easy reference to the Borrowers. The Borrowers can check applicable Rate of Interest from the Statement of Loan Account without any difficulty. The FA No.238 of 2024 10 historical data of applicable PLR Base rate can also be accessed by Borrower by certain steps of the Bank.
19. Learned Counsel for the Respondent-OPs has submitted that the borrowers are also duty bound to check Rate of Interest (ROI) applicable on the loans and revision made from time to time. He has also relied upon the order of this Commission in First Appeal No.61 of 2021 "ICICI Bank Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Charanjit Lal", in CC No.577 of 2019 titled as "Daljit Singh Vs. Central Bank of India & Anr" and First Appeal No.351 of 2022 titled as "ICICI Bank & Anr. Vs. Harbans Singh". Learned Counsel for the Respondent-OPs prayed that present Appeal be dismissed, in the interest of justice.
20. We have heard the oral arguments raised by the Appellants as well as Respondents. We have also perused the order dated 19.04.2024 as well as all the relevant documents available on the file.
21. Facts relating to the filing of the Complaint by the Complainants before the District Commission, issuance of notice, raising of oral arguments by learned Counsel for the parties and passing of impugned order dated 19.04.2024 by the District Commission, thereafter filing of present Appeal before this Commission by the Appellants/Complainants are not in dispute.
22. The issue for adjudication before us as to whether
i) there was any act of 'unfair trade practice' and 'deficiency in service' on the part of the OPs in increasing the tenure FA No.238 of 2024 11 of loan of the Complainants i.e. from 120 installments/EMIs to 140 installments/EMIs without the consent of the Complainants.
ii) Appellants/Complainants are 'Consumers' under the Consumer Protection Act or not?
23. To deal with the issue, we have gone through Ex.P-1 (Schedule 1) wherein the name of the 'Borrower' has been mentioned as "Maa Bhawani Ornaments, Ludhiana". The names of the Complainants i.e. Vijay Thapar/Komal Thapar have been mentioned under the caption of "Proprietor" against the column No.3 of "Name of Borrower". The purpose of the Loan has been shown as "Business" against column No.12. As per the said Exhibit, the loan was sanctioned for an amount of Rs.12,50,000/- (Column 5). Against the column of Repayment Schedule, total tenure of the loan has been shown as 120 @ 17934/-. Further, we have gone through Schedule-2 of the Loan Agreement annexed by the Respondent- Bank. In the said Schedule, it has clearly been mentioned that the interest rate would be linked to Benchmark Prime Landing Rate (BPLR). BPLR means reference Rate used by Banks to determine the rate of interest on loans. The stipulation of Floating Reference Rate is derived from BPLR. Under the column of "Definition", it has clearly been mentioned that the interest rate would be linked to BPLR loans. The said terms and conditions are reproduced below:-
a) Interest Rate = BPLR (+)(-) -3.75 (%) p.a. = 12% p.a. FA No.238 of 2024 12
b) "BPLR Reset Date(s)" shall mean once every __-__ days commencing from the date of first disbursement of the Loan.
B) Computation of Interest :
a) Until varied be the Bank in accordance with the terms of this Schedule, the interest rate applicable to loan shall be as specified hereinabove.
b) The interest rate linked to BPLR shall be reset on the BPLR Rest Dates by the Bank, based on the then prevailing BPLR.
c) Thereafter, the interest rate linked to BPLR applicable to the amount of the loan will be applied by the Bank on and after the dates so included by the Bank on which such reset would apply.
d) Save and except as provided hereinbelow in clause (e), the EMI is intended to be kept constant irrespective of the variations in the interest rate linked to BPLR and therefore, the EMI(s) is not likely to vary. In case of variation of the EMI(s), no intimation will be provided to the Borrower provided however that the borrower shall be intimates of the Floating interest rate applied on the loan the relevant dates during the preceding financial year on an annual basis within a reasonable time from the expiry of the financial year in such manner as the bank deems fit.
e) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, the Bank shall base on the interest rate linked to BPLR applied on the loan, be applied on the loan, be permitted to increase the EMI(s), on being intimated of such increased EMI9s) in the following circumstances:FA No.238 of 2024 13
i) If the EMI(s) would lead to a negative amortization i.e. where the EMI(s) is not adequate to cover the interest in full, and/or
ii) If the principal component of the EMI(s) is inadequate to amortize the Loan within such period determined by the Bank.
24. The Complainants along with his wife i.e. Vinay Thapar and Komal Thapar had put multiple signatures on the said documents. Meaning thereby that the Complainants were well aware that the Respondent Bank could charge interest (+)(-) 3.75%. Besides he was also aware of Clause (d) (as reproduced above) that in case of variation of the EMIs, no intimation was to be given/sent to the borrowers. Therefore, the contention of the Respondent-Bank that the Complainants were aware of the terms and conditions of the loan agreement with regard to levying of floating rate of interest (linked to BPLR) is accepted.
25. Furthermore, we have gone through Annexure R-3 tendered into evidence by the Respondent-Bank. It is the account statement of 'Maa Bhawani Ornaments" - The Principal Borrower, it has transpired that the rate of interest charged by the Respondent- Bank from July, 2010 to July, 2022 had varied between 12% (minimum) to 14.75% (maximum). This document establishes that the Bank was charging interest as per BPLR as mentioned in the Loan Agreement. In this context, Ex.C-2 also establishes that the interest rate type opted by the Complainants was "Floating". This document has been tendered by the Complainants themselves. This FA No.238 of 2024 14 fact again fortifies the contention of the learned counsel for Respondent-Bank that the Complainants had opted for floating rate of interest at the time of obtaining/taking over of loan from OPs.
26. We have gone through the documents submitted by the Complainants. These documents are the property papers/ property release acknowledgement/ No Dues Letter from Citi Corp Finance India Limited. He has annexed one Pen Drive i.e. Annexure AE-02R. The said Pen-Drive contains an audio recording of conversation of Helpline personnel of HDFC Bank Ltd with Complainant No.1 on 13.07.2019. The time period of conversation between the Complainant No.1 and helpline personal was 23 Minutes 23 Seconds. During the said conversation, the Complainant No.1 has raised queries regarding higher rate of interest charged by the Respondent- Bank. The Bank personnel had replied that the Bank has proceeded as per the contents of Welcome Letter/Loan Agreement of the said loan. With regard to query on REPO RATE, the reply of the attending helpline call was that the Bank could not decrease rate of interest as the REPO RATE was never decreased during the time when the Complainants had repaid his loan. The conversation between the Helpline Personnel and the Complainant No.1 shows that the Helpline Personnel had replied to all the queries of the Complainant No.1 in clear and professional manner. On the contrary, the Complainant No.1 during conversation even threatened the helpline personnel that he would file a case against Bank in this context. The Appellants have repeatedly alleged that the Bank had cheated him as FA No.238 of 2024 15 Komal Thapar wife of the Appellant who was actually a guarantor but the Bank officials had treated her as co-borrower. In this regard, it is pertinent to reiterate that the Appellant and his wife had put their signatures on Schedule 1,2 &3 (Page 20 & 21 of the Appeal) of the Loan Agreement. If they had any objection with regard to their role as guarantor/co-borrower, they could have immediately raised this issue with OPs. In fact, in Schedule 3, which pertains to Terms & Conditions Governing Fixed Rate of Interest Loans, the Respondent Bank has not computed any fixed rate of interest. The Complainant & his wife had put their signatures on this particular Schedule. Meaning thereby they were well aware that Fixed Rate of Interest was not being levied upon them for the said loan. Therefore, in the aforesaid context pertaining to allegations of the Appellants in the audio recording/written arguments, we deem it appropriate to observe that the allegations levelled by the Complainants in Complaint/audio recording could have been termed valid, if there was any deviation on part of the Bank from the terms & conditions of Welcome Letter/Loan Agreement. More so, when the Complainant No.1 & 2 themselves had signed each and every page of said Loan Agreement. The said contention of the Appellants/Complainants is hereby rejected.
27. The Appellants/Complainants have tendered into evidence Annexure A-3 with regard to REPO Rate and News clipping regarding digital arrest. Both these issues are not relevant for adjudication of the Complaint in hand. The REPO Rate is the Rate of FA No.238 of 2024 16 interest at which RBI lends to Commercial Banks whereas the Complainants were charged rate of interest linked to BPLR.
28. With regard to the contention of the Complainants, OPs had sent them two communications dated 21.06.2010 and 23.06.2010. We have seen Annexure AE-02 wherein the tenure of repayment schedule of loan No.80067957 had been reflected as 146 whereas in letter dated 23.6.2010, the tenure has been reflected as
120. It has been observed that only the schedule of payment having 120 EMIs has a forwarding letter whereas the repayment schedule having 146 EMIs does not have any forwarding letter. However, these documents do not reflect the main contention of the Complainants that the OPs could not have levied Floating Rate of Interest (BPLR linked) from the Complainants. Hence, the anomaly pointed out by the Complainants in these two documents does not prove that the OPs have indulged in any "unfair trade practice/deficiency in service".
29. With regard to the Complainants being the 'Consumers', we have gone through the contents of impugned order. The District Commission had observed that the Appellants/Complainants are not a 'Consumer' as it is evident from the record that Complainant No.3 is a Firm which is the principal borrower and Complainants No.1 & 2 are just the co-borrowers. It was the loan against property, the same was sanctioned/disbursed for business purpose. Complainant No.1 being the Proprietor carries the business of Complainant No.3 firm. The dominant purpose for availing loan was directly linked to commercial FA No.238 of 2024 17 activities of Complainant No.3 Firm which was dealing in trading of jewellery items and precious stones etc. The loan was obtained about 14 years back and at that time the amount of loan i.e. Rs.12,50,000/- was a huge amount. Such loans are obtained not for simply to earn livelihood but exclusively for generation of large-scale profits. Apparently, the loan was availed for commercial purpose and the Complainants do not qualify to be called as "Consumers" within the meaning of Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act."
30. The Appellants have relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as "Rohit Chaudhary & Anr. Vs. Vipul Limited" in Civil Appeal No.5858 of 2015 wherein it was held 'if the commercial use is by the purchaser himself for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment, such purchaser of goods would continue to be a "Consumer". The Appellants/Complainants have also relied upon case titled as Sunil Kohli & Anr. Vs. M/s Purearth Infrastructure Ltd. in Civil Appeal Nos. 9004-9005 of 2018. Even if the Appellants fall within the definition of 'Consumers' as per aforesaid ratio of judgements yet they cannot absolve himself from the fact that he and his wife were aware of the terms and conditions of the loan agreement with regard to levying Floating Rate of interest linked to BPLR.
31. In light of above said observations, evidence tendered by parties and the contents of impugned order, we are of the view that District Commission has passed a well-reasoned order. No FA No.238 of 2024 18 interference is required by this Commission in the said impugned order. Accordingly, the Appeal is dismissed and the order dated 19.04.2024 passed by the District Commission is upheld.
32. Since the main case has been disposed off, so all the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are accordingly, disposed off.
33. The Appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY) PRESIDENT (SIMARJOT KAUR) MEMBER (VISHAV KANT GARG) February 11, 2025 MEMBER LB/-