Summary
The Supreme Court set aside consumer-forum directions for a substantial refund of bank processing and techno-economic appraisal charges. The borrower knew charges were payable, had authorised debiting and repeatedly revised its credit request before sanction. A requested fifty-percent concession had to be considered against total charges, rather than selectively reducing individual heads again. The bank was nevertheless directed to refund ₹9.16 lakh in accordance with its own communicated decision.
Issues
- Whether the consumer fora correctly calculated the refundable bank charges.
- Whether the borrower’s claimed ignorance, delay and requested concession supported the larger refund.
Held
- The National Commission’s selective calculation did not accord with the proposal, circulars and sanction charges. Even assuming a fifty-percent concession on the aggregate, the permissible charges exceeded the amount debited; the concession could not be applied as further reductions to selected heads. (¶¶ 15, 16, 17, 19)
- The borrower was an existing customer seeking substantial credit and had itself asked for a concession, demonstrating knowledge that processing charges were payable. Its authorisation supported the debit, and the bank sanctioned within about three months of the final revised request. (¶¶ 12, 13, 17, 18)
- The bank’s communicated decision to refund ₹9.16 lakh remained the appropriate limited refund. It did not justify waiver of the entire techno-economic viability charge or the National Commission’s larger award. (¶¶ 19, 20)
Result
Bank’s appeal allowed and State and National Commission orders set aside. Bank directed to refund ₹9.16 lakh within two months.