Under the leadership of Inder Jit Singh, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission reiterated that banks lack the authority to unilaterally adjust agreed-upon EMI amounts. Furthermore, the commission emphasized that issues not raised in initial pleadings cannot be introduced in subsequent higher courts if they were not originally framed.
Case Overview:
The complainant, an employee of Hindustan Aeronautics Lucknow, consistently serviced loan installments with Central Bank, deducted from their salary account without fail. Originally set to conclude on June 30, 2015, the bank unexpectedly increased the monthly installment from Rs. 7,566 to Rs. 8,766 without justification. This unilateral action was deemed illegal, constituting unfair trade practice and service deficiency by the complainant.
Despite complying with the increased payments and ultimately repaying the loan, the complainant faced further distress when the bank withheld their loan documents upon request. Subsequently, the complainant filed a complaint with the District Forum, which ruled in their favor. Dissatisfied, the bank appealed to the State Commission, but their appeal was rejected. Subsequently, the bank filed a revision petition before the National Commission.
Bank’s Argument:
The bank argued that a simple calculation error led to the discrepancy in the EMI amount stated by the District Forum. According to the Loan Agreement’s terms and conditions, the correct EMI amount was asserted to be Rs. 8,566, not Rs. 7,566. It was maintained that there had been no increase in the agreed-upon interest rate, referencing the Statement of Account presented during proceedings to support this claim. The bank pointed to Article 2.6(c) of the Loan Agreement, which purportedly authorized them to adjust the EMI amount to ensure timely loan repayment.
Commission’s Findings:
The Commission noted that the bank’s claim of the correct EMI being Rs. 8,776 lacked substantiation, as the Loan Agreement explicitly stated it as Rs. 7,566. Moreover, the bank’s acceptance and acknowledgment of the lower EMI amount over a significant period of 82 months highlighted their error, constituting a service deficiency on the bank’s part. The Commission also emphasized the bank’s failure to raise the issue of mistake before the lower courts, citing a precedent that precludes raising such claims in higher courts without prior factual basis established in lower courts.
As a result, the Commission upheld the decisions of both the State Commission and the District Forum, finding no grounds to intervene. Therefore, the revision petition filed by the bank was dismissed.
