State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Smt. Alka Bhandari vs Future Capital Holdings Limited And ... on 25 July, 2025
SC/5/A/15/270 Smt. Alka Bhandari 25.07.2025
Vs.
Future Capital Holdings Ltd. & Anr.
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND,
DEHRADUN
Date of Institution : 07.12.2015
Date of Final Hearing : 18.07.2025
Date of Pronouncement : 25.07.2025
SC/5/A/15/270
Smt. Alka Bhandari W/o Sh. N.K. Bhandari
R/o 259/6, Sirmaur Marg, Kishan Nagar, Thana Cant, Dehradun
(Through: Sh. Shubham Sakarwal, Advocate)
.....Appellant
VERSUS
1. Future Capital Holdings Ltd.
India Bulls Finance Centre, 15th Floor, Tower-II
Senapati Marg, Mumbai 400013
Through Branch Office: Himshri Complex
Above Pinki Audio & Video Shop,
Near Natraj Publishers & Book Seller
First Floor, Opposite Gandhi Road, Rajpur Road
Thana Kotwali, Dehradun
2. Future Capital Holdings Ltd.
India Bulls Finance Centre
15th Floor, Tower-II, Senapati Marg, Mumbai - 400013
Through its Authorised Officer
(Through: Sh. Nitin Kumar, Advocate)
.....Respondents
Coram:
Ms. Kumkum Rani, President
Mr. C.M. Singh, Member
ORDER
(Per: Mr. C.M. Singh, Member):
This appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been directed against judgment and order dated 06.11.2015 passed by 1 SC/5/A/15/270 Smt. Alka Bhandari 25.07.2025 Vs. Future Capital Holdings Ltd. & Anr.
the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dehradun (hereinafter to be referred as the District Commission) in consumer complaint No. 34 of 2013 styled as Smt. Alka Bhandari Vs. Future Capital Holdings Ltd. & Anr., wherein and whereby the complaint was dismissed.
2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, in brief, are as such that according to the complainant, she had availed a housing loan of Rs. 49,51,000/- from the opposite parties on dated 09.03.2011 which she paid through regular instalments. The loan was initially sanctioned at annual rate of interest of 13% per annum. However, the opposite parties subsequently started charging an exorbitant interest rate of 48% contrary to the agreed terms. It was further alleged that the cheques issued by the complainant for loan repayment were being deliberately credited to the housing loan account of the complainant after a delay of 20-30 days, purportedly to charge undue interest. The complainant alleged that she was subjected to harassment and mental distress due to such act of the opposite parties. Moreover, the opposite parties insisted on payment being made under pressure and charged excessive fee for part payment. The complainant further submitted that as per letter dated 18.09.2012, issued by the opposite parties, balance of which Rs. 2,88,254.85 was shown as due which she subsequently paid. However, on that date, there was no outstanding amount against her, as the loan had already been fully paid and original documents returned, indicating the closure of the loan account. Subsequently, on dated 09.10.2012 an amount of Rs. 46,805/- was fraudulently debited from her account via ECS by the opposite parties. Upon learning of this unauthorised withdrawal, the complainant lodged a police complaint with SSP, Dehradun on dated 03.11.2012. Meanwhile, the said amount was re-credited by the opposite parties to her account. The complainant has also alleged that a total excess amount of Rs. 1,80,885/- was recovered from her under various heads. Despite her repeated requests 2 SC/5/A/15/270 Smt. Alka Bhandari 25.07.2025 Vs. Future Capital Holdings Ltd. & Anr.
for refund, the opposite parties failed to return the said amount. Thus, the act of the opposite parties constitutes deficiency in service prompting the complainant to file the present complaint.
3. The opposite parties in their written statement submitted that the complainant was sanctioned a housing loan of Rs. 49,51,000/- from them. They contended that the interest charged was in accordance with the terms & conditions mutually agreed by both the parties and that the same was duly communicated to the complainant on a regular basis. The opposite parties relied on the complainant's own bank record / statement which according to them reflected payments made in line with agreed schedule. It was further submitted that if the complainant had any objection regarding the loan terms or interest charges, such objections should have been raised earlier. The opposite parties admitted that an amount of Rs. 2,88,254/- was deposited on dated 21.09.2012 by the complainant, but denied the allegations that this was an excess or unjustified demand. They asserted that such claim of the complainant was baseless, fabricated and intended to mislead. The opposite parties further stated that the complaint was frivolous and had been filed solely with the aim of evading legitimate financial obligations. The opposite parties being a regulated financial institutions are operating under the supervision of RBI and submitted that all the transactions were conducted in transparent and lawful manner. They also stated that the amount referred by the complainant in para No. 15 of the complaint pertains to the period prior to closure of the account during which no objection had been raised. According to the opposite parties, the dispute raised by the complainant was essentially an accounting matter and not indicative of any deficiency in service. As such, the Consumer Commission has no jurisdiction over the issue. In view of the above, the opposite parties argued that the complainant was not entitled to any 3 SC/5/A/15/270 Smt. Alka Bhandari 25.07.2025 Vs. Future Capital Holdings Ltd. & Anr.
monetary relief and the complaint lacks legal merit and appears to have been filed to derive undue benefit.
4. After hearing both the parties and after taking into consideration the facts and evidence on record, the District Commission has passed the impugned judgment and order dated 06.11.2015 wherein and whereby the District Commission has dismissed the complaint.
5. On having been aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order of the District Commission, the complainant has preferred the present appeal as appellant.
6. In the grounds of appeal, learned counsel for the appellant has stated that the impugned judgment and order of the District Commission is arbitrary and against the law; that the Lower Court did not peruse the record and ignored the facts and evidence placed before the Commission. The Lower Court failed to observed that the interest rate of 48% was recovered from the complainant instead of 13%. The District Commission has also erroneously concluded without any credible basis that the appellant had not submitted any supporting evidence; the impugned judgment and order is against law, baseless and contrary to the evidence, hence is liable to be set aside.
7. In support of the appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the respondents - opposite parties have arbitrarily charged exorbitant rate of interest @ 48.06%, resulting a loss of Rs. 9,009/- to the appellant. He further argued that the respondents imposed excessive pre- payment charges of Rs. 86,139/- which were unjustified. It was also 4 SC/5/A/15/270 Smt. Alka Bhandari 25.07.2025 Vs. Future Capital Holdings Ltd. & Anr.
contended that the respondents deliberately delayed the crediting of pre- payment installment to the appellant's housing loan account, despite the fact that the housing loan installments were properly debited from the appellant's account maintained with Bank of Baroda. The corresponding credits in the housing loan account were reflected only after a considerable delay, thereby causing an additional loss of Rs. 49,886/- to the appellant. Furthermore, the learned counsel pointed out that an excess amount of Rs. 5,515/-was recovered by the respondents towards the processing fees at the time of disbursing the housing loan without any valid justification. Further, the respondents with an intention to harass the appellant, debited an amount of Rs. 46,805/- after closure of housing loan account, which was later refunded only after the appellant - complainant lodged a policy complaint against the respondents. Thus, the appellant was compelled to pay the excess amount of Rs. 1,50,549/- to the respondents due to these unjustified charges and delays. Learned counsel for the appellant has also relied upon the cited case of Arun Bhatiya Vs. HDFC Bank & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 5204-5205 of 2022 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 08.08.2022.
8. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that the present dispute relates to the accounting entry and does not amount to deficiency in service, therefore, the Consumer Commission lacks the jurisdiction to adjudicate the complaint. He further submitted that the grievance raised by the appellant pertains to the period after the closure of the loan account, rendering the complaint not maintainable. It was also argued that there was no lapse or deficiency in service on the part of the respondents and accordingly, the appeal is without merit and is liable to be dismissed. In 5 SC/5/A/15/270 Smt. Alka Bhandari 25.07.2025 Vs. Future Capital Holdings Ltd. & Anr.
support of his arguments, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted the following cited case laws:-
(i) Hongkong And Shanghai Banking Corp.
Ltd. vs. Awaz & Ors., 2025 (1) CCC 153 (SC).
(ii) The Chairman & Managing Director, City Union Bank Ltd. & Anr. vs. R. Chandramohan, 2023 0 Supreme (SC) 279, Supreme Court of India.
9. Learned counsel Sh. Shubham Sakarwal for the appellant as well as learned counsel Sh. Nitin Kumar for respondents has appeared.
10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
11. On the basis of pleadings, evidence on record and arguments advanced by the learned counsel, the following points arises for determination:-
(i) Whether the respondents - opposite parties charged an exorbitant and unauthorised rate of interest (48.06%) in violation of agreed loan terms thereby causing the financial loss to the appellant - complainant?
(ii) Whether the respondents levied excessive and unjustified pre- payment charges from the appellant?
(iii) Whether the opposite parties caused undue delay in processing prepayment, resulting monetary loss to the appellant?
(iv) Whether recovery of Rs. 5,515/- towards processing fees was in excess and unjustified?6
SC/5/A/15/270 Smt. Alka Bhandari 25.07.2025
Vs.
Future Capital Holdings Ltd. & Anr.
(v) Whether the respondents wrongfully debited an amount of Rs. 46,805/- from the appellant's account through ECS after closure of the housing loan account and whether such action amounts deficiency in service?
(vi) Whether the dispute pertains purely to the accounting issue and constitutes deficiency in service within the jurisdiction of the Consumer Commission.
12. The findings of the points of determination are as under:-
(i) Whether the respondents - opposite parties charged an exorbitant and unauthorised rate of interest (48.06%) in violation of agreed loan terms thereby causing the financial loss to the appellant - complainant?
On examining the Sanction letter (paper No. 15) issued by the respondents, it is evident that the appellant was sanctioned a housing loan at a floating rate of interest 13%. As per paper No. 35, throughout the loan tenure the interest charged generally remained around 13%. However, for the month of September, 2012 (item No. 17 paper No. 35), the interest charged amounting to Rs. 12,619.21 which translates to an interest rate exceeding 48%. This is a clear breach of agreed terms of housing loan. The appellant has also submitted a Chartered Accountant's certificate (paper No. 81) which confirms that an excess amount of Rs. 9,009/- was charged during that month. The respondents have failed to provide any valid and reasonable explanation for levying such high rate of interest which appears arbitrary and unjustified and is contrary to the sanctioned loan terms.
(ii) Whether the respondents levied excessive and unjustified pre- payment charges from the appellant?
The respondents recovered an amount of Rs. 86,139/- as part payment charges as certified by Chartered Accountant's certificate (paper No. 83) submitted by the appellant. Upon examining of the sanctioned letter (paper No. 15) it is noted that schedule of fees of part pre payment 7 SC/5/A/15/270 Smt. Alka Bhandari 25.07.2025 Vs. Future Capital Holdings Ltd. & Anr.
is mentioned as NIL. Further, it is also stated that no pre-payment full or part pre-payment shall be allowed within first six months from the date of disbursal. Additionally, the sanctioned letter also includes a schedule of fees for full and final payment (i.e. foreclosure) with a note stating that "Any part prepayment made within last 12 months from foreclosure date shall also attract the fees as above." Further clause 2.9(a) (paper No. 107) of the loan agreement provides that the complainant is liable to pay pre- payment charges as mentioned in the schedule attached to the loan agreement. However, a perusal of the said schedule (item No. i paper No.
115) reveals that the clause regarding full prepayment charges has been deleted and this deletion is duly authenticated by authorised signatory of the respondents. Moreover, clause No. 2.9(b) (paper No. 107) specifies that no prepayment shall be made during the first six months from the effective date (date of first disbursement) or till the loan if fully disbursed, whichever is later. In the instant case, loan was fully disbursed on dated 15.03.2011 (paper No. 127) and the appellant commenced part prepayment from 15.12.2011 (paper No. 30) i.e. after a gap of 9 months from the date of full disbursement. The terms and conditions regarding prepayment charges are ambiguous and vague. In accordance with the well established principles, they must be construed in favour of the complainant. Therefore, the restriction of prepayment does not apply in the present case. In the light of the above, the imposition and recovery of excessive prepayment charges by the respondents is unjustified.
(iii) Whether the opposite parties caused undue delay in processing prepayment, resulting monetary loss to the appellant?
As per paper No. 30, the appellant made a part prepayment by Rs. 3Lacs via cheque drawn on Bank of Baroda dated 15.12.2011. Although the cheque was debited from the appellant's account on dated 19.12.2011 (paper No. 128), the amount was credited to the appellant's housing loan account only on 07.04.2012 after delay of 110 days. Similarly 8 SC/5/A/15/270 Smt. Alka Bhandari 25.07.2025 Vs. Future Capital Holdings Ltd. & Anr.
a cheque of Rs. 2 Lacs (paper No. 31) deposited by the appellant on dated 25.01.2012 was debited from the appellant on dated 31.01.2012 (paper No.
128) the amount was credited on dated 07.04.2012 resulting in a delay of 67 days. Another cheque of Rs. 5Lacs (paper No. 32) deposited on dated 15.02.2012 and the same was debited on dated 17.02.2012 (paper No. 128) was likewise credited on dated 07.04.2012 after a delay of 50 days. Further a cheque of Rs. 10Lacs (paper No. 33) deposited on dated 10.05.2012 and the same was debited on dated 11.05.2012 (paper No. 129) and was credited on dated 07.06.2012 showing a delay of 27 days. Lastly a cheque of Rs. 25,55,690/- (paper No. 34) deposited on dated 21.08.2012 was debited on 25.08.2012 (paper No. 130) and was credited to the account of the appellant on dated 07.09.2012 after a delay of 13 days. As per sanctioned letter (paper No. 15) the housing loan was sanctioned at floating rate of interest @ 13% without specifying whether the interest was on daily or monthly reducing basis. However, the loan agreement schedule (paper No. 114) specified that interest is credited on monthly reducing rate. In case of such ambiguity doctrine of contra proferenten, applies, i.e. ambiguity in contract terms must be interpreted against the drafters. Therefore, the standard industry practice of daily reducing balance should be followed and the credit for prepayment should be given from the date of the fund were received, rather than on delayed or arbitrary dates set by the respondents. The appellant had submitted the calculation sheet certified by the Chartered Accountant (paper No. 82) detailing the interest loss due to delayed credited. After scrutiny, we concur with the calculation provided therein, except for item No. 2 were the delay should be 67 days (not 71days). Consequently, the interest for that item is revised to Rs. 5,048/- (instead of Rs. 5,349/-), bringing the total compensationable Rs. 49,585/-.
(iv) Whether recovery of Rs. 5,515/- towards processing fees was in excess and unjustified?
9 SC/5/A/15/270 Smt. Alka Bhandari 25.07.2025
Vs.
Future Capital Holdings Ltd. & Anr.
As per sanctioned letter (paper No. 15) Rs. 54,610/- the processing fees for sanctioning the housing loan was to be recovered from the appellant. Out of this, an amount of Rs. 25,000/- was collected in advance through the demand draft and remaining Rs. 29,610/- was to be adjusted from the disbursed housing loan amount. On dated 22.01.2011, the appellant made an additional payment of Rs. 5,515/- (paper No. 29) thereby making total payment of Rs. 30,515/-. Consequently, only Rs. 24,095/- was to be recovered from the loan disbursement amount. However, while disbursing the housing loan, the respondents disbursed Rs. 48,71,329/- (paper No. 127) against the sanctioned loan amount of Rs. 49,51,000/-. The difference of Rs. 79,671/- was appropriated as interest of Rs. 50,061/- (first item, paper No. 35) and Rs. 29,610/- as balance processing charges. Given that the appellant had already paid Rs. 5,515/- over and above, Rs. 25,000/- initially collected. The respondents ought to have recovered only Rs. 24,095/-from the disbursement amount, instead they recovered the full amount, i.e. Rs. 29,610/- resulting an excess and unjustified recovery of Rs. 5,515/-. Accordingly, the appellant is entitled to get refund of this excess amount of Rs. 5,515/-.
(v) Whether the respondents wrongfully debited an amount of Rs. 46,805/- from the appellant's account through ECS after closure of the housing loan account and whether such action amounts deficiency in service?
The housing loan account of the appellant was closed on dated 21.09.2012, however, the respondents recovered an amount of Rs. 46,805/- through ECS on dated 09.10.2012 (paper No. 26) and was later refunded by the respondents on dated 05.11.2012 (paper No. 28) after a police complaint. Withdrawal of funds after closure of the housing loan account without any outstanding liability clearly amounts to unauthorised transaction and deficiency in service.
10 SC/5/A/15/270 Smt. Alka Bhandari 25.07.2025
Vs.
Future Capital Holdings Ltd. & Anr.
(vi) Whether the dispute pertains purely to the accounting issue and constitutes deficiency in service within the jurisdiction of the Consumer Commission?
The issue raised by the appellant pertaining to undue interest charged, delayed credit of payments, recovery of excess processing charges and unauthorised withdrawal. These are not mere discrepancies, but respondents' action attributed to affecting the appellant's legal right as a consumer of financial services. The borrower remains a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act so long as the claim arises from the service (like housing loan) they availed even post-closure. Hence, the complaint falls within the purview of deficiency in service under Consumer Protection Act.
13. In the case of Hongkong And Shanghai Banking Corp. Ltd. (supra) cited by the learned counsel of respondents, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held as under:-
52. "In the case of Central Bank of India Vs Ravindra & Ors. (2002) 1 SCC 367, this Hon'ble Court had decided on the issue, when banks in India were not following a uniform practice, and other banks charged interest with monthly or quarterly rests while others charged with yearly or six-
monthly rests. It was held by this Hon'ble Court, that a distinction was drawn between the court's power to interfere on the promise that the interest charged is excessive under the general law, and the court's interference on the premise that the interest charged is in contravention of the circulars and 11 SC/5/A/15/270 Smt. Alka Bhandari 25.07.2025 Vs. Future Capital Holdings Ltd. & Anr.
directions issued by the Reserve Bank of India. In the former case, it would not be permissible in view of the bar enacted by Section 21A of the Banking Regulation Act, while in the latter case, it would be permissible because of the Reserve Bank of India's circulars and directions having statutory force under Section 21/35A of the Act, having been violated."
The sum and substance of the above observations by the Hon'ble Apex Court is that Courts / Consumer Commission can intervene in matters pertaining to contravention of RBI circular & directions. In the present case, the respondents violated the terms of the loan sanction stated ambiguities into the loan agreement and unlawfully recovered excess processing charges all of which amount to non-compliance with RBI circular & directions. Therefore, this Commission has jurisdiction to entertain & adjudicate the present complaint.
14. Learned counsel for respondents has also cited the case The Chairman & Managing Director, City Union Bank Ltd. & Anr. (supra). The facts of the said case pertains to fraud and charity and with due respect, it is not applicable to the case in hand.
15. In the case of Arun Bhatiya Vs. HDFC Bank & Ors. (supra), cited by the learned counsel for the appellant, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held as under:
18. "A bench of this Court in Vodafone Idea Cellular Limited v. Ajay Kumar Agarwal 7 (of which one of us, Dr Justice DY Chandrachud, was part) explained that service of every description will fall 12 SC/5/A/15/270 Smt. Alka Bhandari 25.07.2025 Vs. Future Capital Holdings Ltd. & Anr.
within the ambit of the definition of 'services' under section 2(1)(o) of the 1986 Act. The relevant extract reads as follows:
"12. The definition of the expression "service" is couched in wide terms. The width of statutory language emerges from the manner in which the definition is cast. Parliament has used the expression "service of any description which is made available to potential users". The definition employs the "means and includes formula". The means part of the definition incorporates service of "any" description. The inclusive part incorporates services by way of illustration, such as facilities in connection with banking, finance, insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical and other energy, board or lodging and housing construction. The inclusive part is prefaced by the clarification that the services which are specified are not exhaustive. This is apparent from the expression "but not limited to". The last part of the definition excludes
(i) the rendering of any service free of charge; and
(ii) services under a contract of personal service.
Parliament has confined the exclusion only to two specified categories.
The initial part of the definition however makes it abundantly clear that the expression "service" is defined to mean service 7 (2022) 6 SCC 496.
13 SC/5/A/15/270 Smt. Alka Bhandari 25.07.2025
Vs.
Future Capital Holdings Ltd. & Anr.
of any description. In other words, a service of every description would fall within the ambit of the statutory provision."
19. The respondent bank does not dispute that the appellant, along with his father, opened a joint FD with the bank. A person who avails of any service from a bank will fall under the purview of the definition of a 'consumer' under the 1986 Act. As a consequence, it would be open to such a consumer to seek recourse to the remedies provided under the 1986 Act."
The case cited by the leaned counsel for the appellant is fully applicable to the case in hand.
16. In the light of the above findings, it is held that the impugned judgment and order dated 06.11.2015 suffers from illegality and irregularity and the same is liable to be set aside and the appeal deserves to be allowed. Appellant is entitled to get refund of Rs. 1,50,248/- alongwith litigation charges of Rs. 10,000/- from the respondents under the following heads:-
(i) Rs. 9,009/- for excess interest charged in the month of September, 2012;
(ii) Rs. 86,139/- towards excessive part-
prepayment charges.
(iii) Rs. 49,585/- towards interest loss due to delay in interest crediting in housing loan account.
(iv) Rs. 5,515/- for excess processing fees recovered.14
SC/5/A/15/270 Smt. Alka Bhandari 25.07.2025
Vs.
Future Capital Holdings Ltd. & Anr.
17. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment and order dated 06.11.2015 passed by the District Commission, Dehradun is hereby set aside. Respondents - opposite parties shall pay Rs. 1,50,248/- to the appellant - complainant alongwith interest @ 6% per annum on the above amount within a period of one month from the date of this judgment. The respondents shall also pay Rs. 10,000/- as litigation charges to the appellant. No order as to costs of the appeal.
18. A copy of this Order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 /2019. The Order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties. The copy of this order alongwith original record of the District Commission be sent to the concerned District Commission for record and necessary information.
19. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this Order.
(Ms. Kumkum Rani) President (Mr. C.M. Singh) Member Pronounced on: 25.07.2025 15