- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Delhi State Commission Upholds Ex-Parte Interim Order in Consumer Complaint Against PNB Housing Finance Ltd.
Delhi State Commission Upholds Ex-Parte Interim Order in Consumer Complaint Against PNB Housing Finance Ltd.
Recently, the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench of Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President), Ms Pinki (Member), and J.P. Agrawal (Member) dismissed a premature appeal by Punjab National Bank (PNB) against an ex-parte interim order issued by the Delhi District Commission-VI. The bench held that district commissions have the power to issue and extend ex-parte interim orders as needed. The bench also noted that, as the district commission was still considering the matter, PNB could not charge higher EMI rates to the complainants, which was the core of the complaint. This was because doing so could cause unnecessary hardship to the complainants later.
Menka and Manoj Sawhney (complainants) filed a complaint against PNB Housing Finance Ltd. (PNB/appellant) regarding housing and non-housing loans. The complainants received a non-housing loan of ₹2 crore and ₹45 lakh at a floating annual interest rate of 9.5 per cent and an equated monthly instalment (EMI) of ₹2,55,836. They also obtained a housing loan at an annual interest rate of 8.65 per cent and an EMI of ₹2,25,536. The complainants alleged that their signatures were obtained on blank forms.
In 2019, PNB increased the EMI on the complainants' non-housing loan by ₹3,527, to ₹2,59,353. PNB also increased the EMI on the complainants' housing loan by ₹1,272, to ₹2,26,808. The complainants allege that these increases were arbitrary.
Aggrieved, the complainants filed a consumer complaint with the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VI, New Delhi (District Commission). The complainants alleged that PNB is charging them higher interest rates than other customers on both their non-housing and housing loans, despite a decrease in interest rates across the banking sector. The complainants argued that this differential treatment is illegal and arbitrary.
The District Commission passed an interim order in favour of the complainants and directed PNB to accept EMIs at the current interest rate until the complaint is resolved.
Dissatisfied with the District Commission's order, PNB filed an appeal with the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (State Commission). PNB argued that the District Commission had ordered PNB to comply with an interim order without giving PNB a chance to be heard on its review application. PNB also argued that the initial interim order had been issued against PNB without considering PNB's review application. Additionally, PNB argued that the District Commission was causing delays in the case by addressing issues related to the delay in filing a written statement and scheduling arguments on the application for condonation of delay.
Citing Regulation 17 of the Consumer Protection Regulations 2019, the State Commission held that district commissions have the power to issue ex-parte interim orders and can extend them as needed. The State Commission also noted that the district commission's order was not final or conclusive; it was a routine procedural step in the ongoing case and was of a directory nature. Therefore, the State Commission dismissed PNB's appeal as premature, as PNB failed to identify any specific irregularities in the district commission's order.
The State Commission held that, as the issue was prima facie triable, forcing the complainants to pay the increased EMIs until the final order could cause them undue hardship. Therefore, the district commission's ex parte interim order, which based EMIs on the current interest rate to avoid undue hardship, was appropriate. The State Commission also found that the district commission did not deviate from the procedure established by law at any step.
As a result, the State Commission dismissed PNB's first appeal and directed the Delhi District Commission-VI to hear the complaint on its merits, giving both parties due notice and opportunity to be heard.