Case No. 66 of 2016. Case: Ashish Dandona Vs Dhanlaxmi Bank Limited. Competition Commision of India
| Case Number | Case No. 66 of 2016 |
| Judges | G.P. Mittal, J. (Member), Devender Kumar Sikri, Chairperson, S.L. Bunker, Sudhir Mital, Augustine Peter and U.C. Nahta, Members |
| Issue | Competition Act, 2002 - Sections 19(1)(a), 2(r), 26(2), 4 |
| Judgement Date | February 21, 2017 |
| Court | Competition Commision of India |
Order:
Order under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002
-
The present information has been filed by Shri Ashish Dandona (the 'Informant') under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 (the 'Act') against Dhanlaxmi Bank Limited ('OP') alleging contravention of the provisions of Section 4 of the Act.
-
As per information, the Informant is a resident of New Delhi and OP is a private sector bank which provides loan facilities to consumers apart from performing other banking functions. The Informant has claimed to have taken a loan against property for a sum of Rs. 4,25,00,000/- (Four Crore Twenty Five Lacs only), on 25th August, 2011, at a floating interest rate of 13.50 percent per annum, from OP's branch located at Punjabi Bagh, Delhi.
-
The Informant has alleged that OP increased the floating rate of interest with the increase in repo rate by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI); however, when RBI brought down the repo rate, OP did not reduce its rate of interest.
-
The Informant has submitted the repo rate fixed by RBI, effective base rate and effective floating rate charged by OP on the loan availed by the Informant, from time to time, as tabulated below:
-
In view of reduction in the repo rate, on 14th February, 2014, the Informant approached OP and requested it to cut the rate of interest charged on the loan availed. However, OP did not consider the request and refused to reduce the rate of interest charged. Left with no other option, the Informant closed the loan account on 5th March, 2014 with OP. In view of same, OP imposed a pre-payment penalty at the rate of 2 percent. However, later on, upon protest, OP refunded 1 percent pre-payment charges to the Informant.
-
Further, it is submitted that vide email dated 25th March, 2014, the Informant requested OP to refund the excess interest charged by it along with pre-payment charges. It is claimed by the Informant that OP has neither taken any positive step nor given any satisfactory reply to the same.
-
In view of above allegations, the Informant has prayed the Commission to direct OP to refund a sum of Rs. 16,55,134/- (Sixteen Lacs Fifty Thousand One Hundred Thirty Four only) charged by OP as excess interest and pre-payment charges.
-
After a careful perusal of the information and material available on record, the Commission notes that the Informant is aggrieved by the conduct of OP in not reducing the interest rate charged in accordance with the reduction in repo rate and...
To continue reading
Request your trial