State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Standard Chartered Bank vs Ajit Goel on 20 August, 2013
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH First Appeal No. : 301 of 2013 Date of Institution : 18.07.2013 Date of Decision : 20/08/2013 Standard Chartered Bank, SCO No. 137-138, Sector 9-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh, through its Manager. Appellant/Opposite Party V e r s u s 1. Ajit Goel s/o Late Sh. Baldev Krishan, resident of House No. 41, Sector 12, Panchkula. 2. Sidharath Goel s/o Sh. Ajit Goel, resident of House No. 41, Sector 12, Panchkula. ....Respondents/complainants Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Argued by: Sh. Jatin Kumar, Advocate for the appellant. Sh. Gunjan Rishi, Advocate for the respondents. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ First Appeal No. : 331 of 2013 Date of Institution : 01.08.2013 Date of Decision : 20/08/2013 1. Ajit Goel s/o Late Sh. Baldev Krishan, resident of House No. 41, Sector 12, Panchkula. 2. Sidharath Goel s/o Sh. Ajit Goel, resident of House No. 41, Sector 12, Panchkula. Appellants/ complainants V e r s u s Standard Chartered Bank, SCO 137-138, Sector 9-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh 160017. ....Respondent/ Opposite Party Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Argued by: Sh. Gunjan Rishi, Advocate for the appellants. Sh. Jatin Kumar, Advocate for the respondent. BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT. MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.
PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT This order shall dispose of the aforesaid two First Appeal Nos. 301 of 2013 titled as Standard Chartered Bank Vs. Ajit Goel and another, and 331 of 2013 titled Ajit Goel and another Vs Standard Chartered Bank, arising out of the common order dated 07.06.2013, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it allowed Consumer Complaint, bearing No.327 of 2012, and directed the Opposite Party (now appellant in First Appeal No. 301 of 2013 and respondent in First Appeal No. 331 of 2013) , as under:-
Hence, we are of the opinion that foreclosure charges of 4.41% levied by the Opposite Party on the Complainants at the time of foreclosure have been wrongly levied as they have not been provided in terms of the agreement placed on record by the Opposite Party. Also levy of annual charge of Rs.1,32,002/- is not part of the agreement and hence, to our mind, not leviable by the Opposite Party. This complaint is allowed accordingly. The Opposite Party is directed to refund the total amount of foreclosure charges taken from the Complainants, as well as the amount of Rs.1,32,002/- as annual charge. The amount be refunded along with interest @9% p.a. from the date of receipt till the date of payment. Opposite Party will also pay Rs.10,000/- towards costs of litigation.
2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainants were sanctioned loan against property (LAP), by the Opposite Party, vide letter dated 17.07.2010 [Annexure C-1], to the tune of Rs.1.4 crores, for 156 months. The rate of interest which was to be charged by the Opposite Party was bifurcated as, base rate @7.25%, margin @3.26% and Special offer Rate applicable @10.51% p.a. The monthly installment was computed to the tune of Rs.1,64,934/. For sanctioning the aforesaid loan, the Opposite Party had charged Rs.74,210/-, as fees, from the complainants. It was stated that foreclosure charges, to the tune of 2% were to be applicable. Once the loan documents were received, the complainants requested the Opposite Party, to clarify their terms, with regard the foreclosure/pre-closure charges, in case, they wished to exercise the said option, as the documents supplied were silent on this aspect. The Opposite Party, vide letter dated 31.7.2010 Annexure C-2, clarified that the foreclosure/preclosure charges/fees would be charged @2% on the loan limit.
3. After availing of the loan, the complainants regularly remitted the monthly installments, without default. However, in March, 2011, the Opposite Party sent a letter dated 17.03.2011 Annexure C-3, to the complainants, levying an annual charge of Rs.1,32,002.10Ps., starting from 28.03.2011. On receiving the said letter, the complainants expressed anguish over the levy of the annual charge. The complainants expressed to the Opposite Party that there was no mention of any levy of annual charge, at the time of sanctioning of loan, or in the original contract/agreement. The complainants also expressed their desire, to transfer the loan, to another Bank. It was further stated that correspondence was exchanged, between the parties, regarding the annual charge. Meanwhile, the Opposite Party revised the margin i.e. the difference between the variable rate of interest and base rate from 3.56% to 4.76%, with effect from 01.04.2011. The complainants took up the matter, with the Opposite Party, regarding levying of the unjustified charges, unilaterally. The complainants brought to the notice of the Opposite Party, that, at the time of disbursement of loan, margin was to remain static, and only base rate could vary. In reply, the Opposite Party offered a waiver of 0.50% in the annual fee, for a year. Eventually, not satisfied with the services provided, as well as the unprofessional behavior of the Opposite Party, the complainants requested it, for foreclosure of the loan, vide e-mail dated 04.07.2011 Annexure C-9.
4. In response, the complainants received a letter dated 24.08.2011 Annexure C-10, from the Opposite Party, wherein it was stated that the pre-payment charges (inclusive of service tax) would be levied @2.21%. Eventually, when the Opposite Party kept on delaying the matter, on one pretext or the other, the complainants vide letter dated 14.03.2012 Annexure C-11, requested it again to foreclose the loan. The loan was ultimately foreclosed. The Opposite Party, however, now charged foreclosure charges @ of 4.41% instead of 2.21%. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Party, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainants, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed, directing the Opposite Party, to refund the amount of Rs.7,78,687.80Ps, levied beyond the scope of loan agreement; compensation, to the tune of Rs.5 lacs, for mental agony and physical harassment; and cost of litigation.
5. The Opposite Party, in its written version, admitted that the complainants were sanctioned loan against residential property (LARP), by it, vide letter dated 17.07.2010 Annexure C-1, to the tune of Rs.1.4 crores, for 156 months. It was stated that the Opposite Party had to undertake certain verification, prior to the in-principal sanction of home loans. It was further stated that the loan processing fee, to the tune of Rs.74,210/-, paid by the complainants was adjusted towards certain minimum costs, incurred by the Opposite Party, for completion of documentation and verification, prior to the sanction of loan. It was further stated that pre-closure charges @ 4% was applicable to the Loan Against Residential Property (LARP), Home Saver account. It was denied that the pre-closure charges had been offered to the complainants @2%. It was further stated that, as per Clause 8 of the sanction letter, the foreclosure/preclosure charges had been mentioned as 4% on the loan limit, plus applicable service tax. It was further stated the Opposite Party had not issued Annexure C-2, regarding offer of 2% foreclosure/preclosure charges. It was further stated that, as per the terms of the loan agreement, the Opposite Party had the authority to make any changes, in the tariff, as deemed fit. It was further stated that the complainants had authenticated, by affixing their signatures, on the sanction letter and the loan agreement, in respect of the loan, in question, that that they would abide to the changes effected by the Bank, from time to time. It was further stated that interest rates and fees, as also costs were to be revised periodically, which fact was notified to the borrowers/complainants. It was further stated that any variation in the interest rate, resulted in change in the term of the loan facility, the equal monthly installments and number of the same (equal monthly installments). It was further stated that, as per the terms and conditions of loan agreement, the Opposite Party had the legal and contractual right, to introduce or amend any applicable fees, costs and charges. It was further stated that there was no mention, in the sanction letter, that margin, as well as the base rate was to remain static. It was further stated that, waiver in the fees, had been provided to the complainants, on the basis of their relationship, with the Bank. It was further stated that, on receipt of the foreclosure request, by the complainants, it was found that there was a shortfall, in their account, to the tune of for Rs.40,273.46/-, as a result whereof, the Opposite Party was unable to close the loan account. After receipt of all dues, from the complainants, as well as foreclosure/preclosure charges, the loan was foreclosed, on 27.03.2012, and the documents were delivered to the complainants, on 29.03.2012. It was denied that any illegal charges/fees were obtained from the complainants. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Party, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.
6. The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.
7. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, accepted the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the instant order.
8. Feeling aggrieved, First Appeal No.301 of 2013 titled as Standard Chartered Bank Vs. Ajit Goel and another, was filed by the appellant/Opposite Party, for setting aside the order impugned. Whereas, on the other hand, First Appeal No.331 of 2013 titled Ajit Goel and another Vs Standard Chartered Bank, was filed by the appellants/complainants, for modification of the order impugned, by enhancing the compensation, awarded by it.
9. We have heard the Counsel for the parties, in both the appeals, and, have gone through the evidence, and record of the cases, carefully.
10. The Counsel for the appellants in First Appeal No.301 of 2013 titled as Standard Chartered Bank Vs. Ajit Goel and another, submitted that, no doubt, home loan, against the property, was sanctioned, in favour of the complainants. He further submitted that the loan agreement Annexure-3, was executed between the parties. He further submitted that the complainants confirmed, in the application form, that they had read and understood the loan agreement, governing their loan. He further submitted the loan was granted at a variable rate of interest. He further submitted that, in the loan sanction letter, at page 48 of the District Forum file, it was in clear-cut terms, mentioned that prepayment charges would be 4%, of the outstanding on full prepayment. He further submitted that this document was duly signed by the complainants, as also by the authorized representative of the Opposite Party. He further submitted that even, as per Clause 7.1 of the loan agreement, Annexure-3, which was executed between the parties, it was made clear that the prepayment amount complied with any minimum or maximum amount the Bank specified. He further submitted that the letter Annexure C-2 propounded by the complainants was never issued by the Opposite Party. He further submitted that according to the terms and conditions of the loan agreement, the loan was sanctioned, at variable rate of interest. He further submitted that even, as per the loan agreement, the complainants were to abide by the terms and conditions thereof. He further submitted that the preclosure charges and fees, were correctly charged from the complainants. He further submitted that the Opposite Party was neither deficient, in rendering service, nor indulged into unfair trade practice. He further submitted that the District Forum was wrong, in holding to the contrary.
11. On the other hand, the Counsel for the appellants/complainants, in First Appeal No.331 of 2013 titled Ajit Goel and another Vs Standard Chartered Bank, submitted that, as per the letter Annexure C-2, the Opposite Party agreed to charge preclosure charges @2.1%, including the service tax, on the outstanding principal amount, in the event of foreclosure of loan. He further submitted that interest was also charged by the Opposite Party, at a higher rate, than agreed to. He further submitted that fees to the tune of Rs.74,210/- was also illegally charged, by the Opposite Party, as the same was not provided by the loan agreement, executed between the parties. He further submitted that, on account of unprofessional attitude of the Opposite Party, the complainants also suffered a lot of mental agony and physical harassment, and, as such, compensation awarded by the District Forum be enhanced. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, thus, requires modification.
12. The first question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the appellant/Opposite Party, charged interest, at a rate, higher than the one which was agreed to, between the parties, at the time of grant of home loan, against the property. The loan was granted, in favour of the complainants, at variable rate of interest, as is evident, from Conditions 15, 16, 17 and 18, of the terms and conditions of the application form Annexure-1, at page 51 of the District Forum file, which read as under:-
15.Variable Interest Rate If the loan agreement states that variable interest rate applies to your loan, frequency of reviewing interest will be 3 months from the date of disbursement or previous revision whichever applicable.
16. If you have been given a special offer, the Bank may give other special offers from time to time. You have the option, to change to another Special offer provided you agree to pay a fee of 0.75% of the principal outstanding at the time of exercising such option.
17. Your variable interest is linked to the Base Rate which is the benchmark rate for floating rate lending products in the Bank. Base Rate may change from time to time and any revision in this rate has an impact on your interest rate. This information shall be available on www.standardchartered.co.in and at the Phonebanking helplines.
18. The margin between your variable rate of interest and base rate will be determined by factors such as credit grading of the customer, quality of the collateral risk profile of the industry/sector, tenor premium, account behavior/conduct, product level allocable costs etc. and changes in these factors may result in upward or downward revision of the margin.
13. It is evident, from the afore-extracted Conditions, of the application form aforesaid, that the rate of interest, which was to be charged from the complainants, on the loan advanced, in their favour, was to vary from time to time, as per the market conditions. It could rise or fall, as per the market conditions. In other words, the rate of interest, which was to be charged, from the complainants, by the Opposite Party, was not to remain static for all times to come. Annexure C-1 is a copy of the letter, written to the complainants, by the Opposite Party, whereby sanction in principle of the loan, as per the terms and conditions contained therein, was conveyed. According to this document, base rate was mentioned as 7.25%. The margin was mentioned as 3.26%. Specific offer rate applicable to the complainants, from time to time was 10.51% per annum, and this interest was valid for 15 days only, from the date of sanction. There is a note, on this letter that rate could change, if the base rate changed. As stated above, the loan was granted, on variable rate of interest, which was to rise or fall as per the market conditions. No cogent and convincing evidence, was produced by the complainants, to the effect, that they were charged interest at a rate, higher than the one which was prevailing at a particular time, as per the market conditions. The submission of the Counsel for the appellants, in First Appeal No.331 of 2013 titled Ajit Goel and another Vs Standard Chartered Bank, being devoid of merit, must fails, and the same stands rejected,
14. The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the Opposite Party was entitled to charge preclosure charges, in the event of preclosure of loan, if so, at what rate. Admittedly, in the instant case, the loan was preclosed by the complainants, before the expiry of normal duration thereof. Annexure C-11, is a copy of the letter dated 14.03.2012, which was written by the complainants, to the Opposite Party, expressing their intention, to preclose their loan and release of their property documents. The loan was ultimately foreclosed, on 27.03.2012. Copy of the application form, which was moved by the complainants, for the grant of loan is Annexure 1. This application form was signed by the complainants. Vide this application form, the complainants confirmed that they had read and understood their loan agreement, governing the loan granted in their favour. Alongwith this application form, important information document is attached at page 48 of the District Forum file. Against the column preclosure fee, it was, in clear-cut terms, mentioned that 4% of the principal outstanding of full prepayment, in respect of the loan against property, in the event of preclosure of loan, shall be charged. This document was also duly signed by the complainants, on 10.06.2010. It is further evident, from page 51 forming part of the application form itself, containing the terms and conditions that if the amount being part prepaid in calendar year, is greater than 25% of the principal outstanding, then the borrower shall pay to the Bank 4% of the entire amount, being part prepaid. It is evident from Condition number 8 of this document that, in case, the complainants wished to preclose their loan facility (Loan Against Property), they had to pay preclosure fee @4% on the loan, plus any amount that had been part prepaid, in the same calendar year, which had not been charged. There is a schedule of charges, at page 54 of the District Forum file. In this document, against the part prepayment fee, it was mentioned that 4% of the entire amount, as prepayment fee shall be charged, in case of preclosure of loan. It is further evident, from Clause 7.1 of the loan agreement, Annexure-3, executed between the parties, that the prepayment amount complied with any minimum or maximum amount the Bank specified. The District Forum was, thus, wrong, in coming the conclusion, that in the loan agreement Annexure-3, there was no mention of prepayment charges. There was a specific mention, in this document, with regard to prepayment charges, on account of preclosure of loan, though the percentage of prepayment charges was not mentioned therein. Under these circumstances, the documents, referred to above, were required to be read, alongwith the loan agreement Annexure-3, executed between the parties. When the loan agreement, alongwith the application form, important information document, and schedule of charges, referred to above, are read conjointly, then only one and one conclusion, that could be arrived at, was that the Bank was to charge the preclosure charges @4% plus applicable service tax, in the event of preclosure of loan, before the expiry of normal duration of the same. 0.41%, were the service charges, which were to be charged, by the Bank, over and above the preclosure charges, at the time of preclosure of the loan. It was, under these circumstances, that the Opposite Party charged preclosure charges, to the tune of Rs.5,99,128.18Ps @4.41 % on the principal amount outstanding, inclusive of service tax. There was no deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Party, in charging prepayment charges, as per the loan agreement and the documents, referred to above. The District Forum, was, thus, wrong in coming to the conclusion, that the Opposite Party could not charge prepayment charges. The finding of the District Forum, in this regard, being perverse, is reversed.
15. No doubt, the complainants placed reliance on Annexure C-2, copy of the letter dated 31.07.2010, purported to have been written to them, by the Bank, according to which, preclosure fees, was 2% with the applicable service tax. The Opposite Party denied the issuance of any such letter, to the complainants, at any point of time, on the ground, that there was no logo of the Bank, on this letter. Since, there was a specific denial, on the part of the Opposite Party, in the written version, duly supported by the affidavit of Sh. Parshotam, its duly constituted Power of Attorney, it was the duty of the complainants, to produce the original letter, which they purportedly received from the Bank, stating therein that preclosure fee would be @2% with the applicable service tax. No explanation, what to speak of plausible, was furnished by the complainants, as to why the original of Annexure C-2, if ever received by them, from the Bank, was not produced. There was, no reason, to disbelieve the version of the Opposite Party, a Bank of repute, that it never issued letter copy whereof is Annexure C-2, in favour of the complainants, stating therein that the preclosure fee would be @2% with the applicable service tax. This letter is, therefore, ruled out of consideration.
16. Reliance was also placed by the Counsel for the complainants, on Annexure C-10, copy of the letter dated 24.08.2011, which was sent to the complainants, by the Opposite Party, wherein, prepayment charges were mentioned as 2.21%. However, it was submitted by the Counsel for the Opposite Party, that in this letter, it was due to inadvertent mistake, that prepayment charges, to the tune of 2.21%, including the applicable service tax, was mentioned. However, when this mistake came to the notice of the Opposite Party, it immediately, corrected the same and issued another letter dated 24.08.2011 Annexure-6, to the complainants, wherein, the prepayment charges were mentioned as 4.41%, inclusive of service tax. Anybody can commit mistake, at any time. Once the mistake committed by the Opposite Party, in the letter Annexure C-10, mentioning 2.21% prepayment charges, came to its notice, it immediately rectified the same, and issued another letter Annexure-6, on the same day. Under these circumstances, no help can be drawn, by the complainants, from Annexure C-10, to contend that the Opposite Party could only charge prepayment charges to the tune of 2.21% and not 4.41%. The submission of the Counsel for the respondents/complainants, in this regard, therefore, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
17. The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, a sum of Rs.1,32,002.10Ps., on account of annual charges, could be legally charged by the Opposite Party, or not. The Opposite Party Bank incurs costs to offer various products and services to the customers, and therefore, a portion of this cost is levied to the customer`s account, as maintenance charges/fees. Loan against property (home saver), is similar to an overdraft product (OD), available in the market and the annual charges are levied for the usage of OD product. Clauses 5.9 and 17.7 of the agreement, which are relevant, in this regard, are extracted hereunder:-
5.9 Revise of Interest, fees and costs Interest rates (including the Bank`s base lending rates) and fees and costs are revised periodically. For example, interest rates may be revised as a result of changes to rates of interest made by or as directed by the Reserve Bank of India. The borrower must pay the interest, fees and costs applying to the loan facility at the relevant time.
The Bank notifies the borrower of changes to the interest rate. The borrower can find out current rates and fees and costs by contacting the Bank at one of its branches, by using phone banking or by visiting the Bank`s website. Any variation of the interest rate may result in a change in the terms of the loan facility, the EMI or the number of EMIs.
17.7 - Variation The borrower acknowledges that various features of the loan facility may be changed, including fees, interest rates, the basis of calculating interest rates and the margin. The Bank notifies the borrower of the change. However, the Bank may also vary any of the other terms of this agreement by notice to the borrower in accordance with the Bank`s usual practice and in accordance with any applicable law. This may include giving notice to the borrower by public announcement as set out in clause 16.3.
18. It is evident, from the afore-extracted Clause 5.9 that Interest rates (including the Bank`s base lending rates) and fees and costs are revised periodically. It is further evident, from Clause 17.7 that the borrower acknowledged that various features of the loan facility may be changed, including fees, interest rates, the basis of calculating interest rates and the margin. The Bank notified the borrower of the change. However, the Bank may also vary any of the other terms of the agreement by notice to the borrower, in accordance with the Bank`s usual practice and, in accordance with any applicable law. This may include giving notice to the borrower by public announcement as set out in clause 16.3. These Clauses gave ample powers to the Bank, to revise the fees and charges, from time to time, and notify the same, to the customers. It is further evident, from the Schedule of charges, at pages 54 and 55 of the District Forum file, which came into existence, w.e.f. 1.03.2011, against the mortgage products, that annual fees of 1% of the loan outstanding (Loan account Closing balance as per Home Saver Statement) was to be charged every year, in the month in which, the loan was disbursed. The charge was to be annual, in nature, and was to be charged for the next 12 months. Necessary intimation, in this regard, was given to the complainants. Under these circumstances, 1% fees was correctly charged by the Opposite Party, from the complainant, which came to be Rs.1,32,002.10Ps, and this was in accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreement Annexure-3, as also the schedule, and the documents, referred to above. The District Forum was wrong, in coming to the conclusion, that this amount was illegally charged by the Opposite Party, from the complainants. The finding of the District Forum, in this regard, being perverse, is reversed.
19. Not only this, the loan was foreclosed on 27.03.2012, and the documents were delivered to the complainants, on 29.03.2012. There is nothing, on the record that at the time of payment of preclosure charges and fees, any protest was raised by the complainants. There is also, nothing on the record, that immediately after the preclosure of loan, any letter was written to the Opposite Party, by the complainants, that they had illegally charged the preclosure charges, to the tune of Rs.5,99,128.18Ps @4.41 % and Rs.1,32,002.10Ps., as annual charges. The complainants slept over the matter, for a period of about three months, i.e. from 27.03.2012 (when their loan account was foreclosed), and filed a complaint on 04.07.2012, challenging the amount of preclosure charges and the annual fees/charges charged by the Opposite Party. The complainants, thus, paid the aforesaid amount, at the time of preclosure of loan, voluntarily, without any protest. The complainants, thus, were estopped from challenging the demand of preclosure charges as also the annual fees/charges, which they paid, of their own volition.
20. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the Opposite Party was neither deficient, in rendering service, nor indulged into unfair trade practice. The District Forum, was wrong, in holding to the contrary.
21. No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the parties, in both the appeals.
22. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the order passed by the District Forum, being not based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, suffers from illegality and perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission, and is liable to be set aside.
23. For the reasons recorded above, First Appeal No.301 of 2013 titled as Standard Chartered Bank Vs. Ajit Goel and another, is accepted, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is set aside.
24. In view of the decision, rendered in First Appeal No.301 of 2013, First Appeal No.331 of 2013 titled Ajit Goel and another Vs Standard Chartered Bank, is dismissed, with no order as to costs, as having been rendered infructuous.
25. Certified copy of this order, be placed in the file of First Appeal No.331 of 2013 titled Ajit Goel and another Vs Standard Chartered Bank.
26. Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
27. The appeal files be consigned to Record Room, after completion Pronounced.
August 20, 2013 Sd/-
[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)] PRESIDENT Sd/-
(DEV RAJ) MEMBER Rg STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH First Appeal No. :
331of 2013 Date of Institution :
01.08.2013 Date of Decision :
20.08.2013
1.
Ajit Goel s/o Late Sh. Baldev Krishan, resident of House No. 41, Sector 12, Panchkula.
2. Sidharath Goel s/o Sh. Ajit Goel, resident of House No. 41, Sector 12, Panchkula.
Appellants/ complainants V e r s u s Standard Chartered Bank, SCO 137-138, Sector 9-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh 160017.
....Respondent/ Opposite Party Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Argued by: Sh. Gunjan Rishi, Advocate for the appellants.
Sh. Jatin Kumar, Advocate for the respondent.
BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT.
MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.
PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT Vide our separate detailed order of the even date, recorded in connected First Appeal No.301 of 2013 titled as Standard Chartered Bank Vs. Ajit Goel and another, this appeal has been dismissed, with no order as to costs, as having been rendered infructuous.
2. Certified copy of the order, passed in First Appeal No.301 of 2013 titled as Standard Chartered Bank Vs. Ajit Goel and another, be placed on this file.
3. Certified copies of the main order, alongwith this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
4. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.
Sd/- Sd/-
(DEV RAJ) MEMBER (JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)) PRESIDENT Rg