Chandigarh District Commission Holds HDFC Bank Liable for Deficiency in Services and Unfair Trade Practices
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II U.T. Chandigarh bench, consisting of Amrinder Singh Sidhu (President) and B. M. Sharma (Member), recently held HDFC Bank liable for deficiency in services and unfair trade practices. The case involved the extension of the tenure of equated monthly installments (EMIs) of a loan without the consent of the complainant and a reduction in the EMI amount.
Background of the Case
The complainant had procured a credit card from HDFC Bank and subsequently agreed to avail a loan of Rs. 80,000/- at an interest rate of 18.84% per annum, repayable in 12 EMIs of Rs. 7,366/- each. The bank disbursed the loan, and the complainant started making monthly payments. However, in November 2023, the complainant noticed that the bank was debiting EMIs amounting to Rs. 4,021/- instead of the agreed-upon Rs. 7,366/-. The complainant brought this discrepancy to the attention of the bank through emails, but the bank did not rectify the issue.
Decision of the District Commission
The District Commission noted that the bank had unilaterally extended the tenure of the EMIs from 12 months to 24 months and reduced the EMI amount without seeking the complainant’s consent. Despite the complainant’s repeated requests, the bank did not rectify the discrepancy. The bank also did not appear before the District Commission for the proceedings.
In the absence of any counterarguments or rebuttals from the bank’s side, the District Commission held that the complainant’s version stood unchallenged. It concluded that the bank’s failure to address the complainant’s concerns and rectify the deviation from the agreed terms of the loan constituted deficient service and unfair trade practices.
Decision and Directions of the District Commission
The District Commission directed HDFC Bank to rectify the loan account of the complainant to adhere to the original terms as per the complainant’s request. This decision aimed to ensure that the bank fulfills its obligations and provides the complainant with the agreed-upon terms of the loan.
Conclusion
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II U.T. Chandigarh bench held HDFC Bank liable for deficiency in services and unfair trade practices in the case involving the extension of EMIs’ tenure and reduction in the EMI amount without the complainant’s consent. The decision of the District Commission aims to protect the rights of consumers and ensure that banks fulfill their obligations in accordance with the agreed terms of loans.
