Haryana

Ambala

CC/371/2021

Lekh Raj - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC Bank Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Daljit Singh Chhillar

22 Sep 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

Complaint case no.	:	371 of 2021
Date of Institution	:	03.12.2021
Date of decision	:	22.09.2023

        Lekh Raj son of Sh. Soni Ram, resident of Village Metlan, P.O Udaipur, Tehsil and District Ambala, District Ambala.

……. Complainant.

Versus

1. HDFC Bank Limited, through its Manager, Loan Service Centre Ground Floor Bank House, Plot No.28, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Ambala Cantt.
2. HDFC Bank Limited, HDFC Bank House, Sena Pati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel (West) Mumbai, through its Managing Director.

….…. Opposite Parties.

 Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                      Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member.

          Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.           

 

Present:        Shri D.S.Chhillar, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.

                      Shri Puneet Sirpaul, Advocate, counsel for the OPs.

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

1.                Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’), praying for issuance of directions to them, to issue him NOC and to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for causing him mental shock, pain and agony etc. or grant any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission may deems fit. 

2.    Brief facts of this case are that in the year 2006, the complainant opted for a personal loan of Rs.35,000/-, and the same was sanctioned by the OPs, repayable in 24 monthly installments of Rs.2140/- each. Number of signatures of the complainant were obtained by the OPs on papers, at the time of sanctioning of loan and due to passage of time the complainant doesn't remember as to on what papers his signatures were obtained. The complainant has paid the installments of the loan amount to the OPs and in the month of May 2008, he had made the entire/total payment to the OPs and his loan was cleared and the official of the bank had issued a receipt of full and final payment of amount. All the installments of the loan amount were collected by the agent of the OPs and receipts were issued. After making entire payment by the complainant, and after the issuance of receipt of full and final installment, the OPs never demanded even a single penny from the complainant. Now when the complainant was again in need of the loan, he went to the OPs and asked for a loan, upon which the OPs told the complainant that he had already defaulted the payment of his previous loan amount and a sum of Rs.47,534/- is still outstanding against the complainant as on 2-11-2021 i.e. Total EMI O/S Rs.7,640/-; Total OEI O/S  Rs. 29,544/-; Total CBC O/S Rs. 10,350/-. The complainant was shocked to know that when he had cleared the amount, how such a huge amount is outstanding against him. The complainant took the account statement from the OPs, in which the OPs had shown the charges of bouncing of cheques time and again, of Rs.450/- each, whereas the complainant had paid whole of the amount including interest in cash. The OPs have never informed the complainant after May 2008, till the date, about the pendency of any such amount, and when the complainant approached the OPs for another personal loan, he came to know about the said illegal act and malpractice of the OPs. Hence, the present complaint.
3.           Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed written version wherein they raised preliminary objections to the effect that the complainant has suppressed the material facts from this Commission;  the complaint is barred by limitation; this Commission does not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint;  the relationship between the complainant and the OPs is pursuant to the contract entered into between the parties hereto; the present complaint is filed by the complainant just to evade his legal liability due towards the OPs etc. On merits, it has been stated that the complainant has taken the short term personal loan (STPL) of Rs.34,986/- vide loan account no. 2448725 from the OPs, which was to be repaid in 24 monthly installments of Rs.2140/- w.e.f. 02.02.2006 to 02.01.2008. At the time of taking the loan, the complainant has executed as well as signed the loan agreement with the OPs, whereas it is clear from the relevant terms and conditions of the loan agreement i.e. Clause no. 8 that the defaulted party will pay the additional interest @ 24% on the defaulted amount. Since, the complainant committed default in making the payment of installments, therefore he is also liable to pay the overdue EMI interest as well as cheque bouncing charges. It is apparent from the statement of loan account dated 28.07.2022 that an amount of Rs.48,751/- is due and outstanding against the complainant being outstanding installments along with overdue EMI interest as well as cheque bouncing charges. The complainant has not repaid the entire loan, however the complainant has falsely stated that he has paid the entire loan, whereas he has also not filed any receipt showing full and final payment as alleged by him in his complaint. Further, the complainant has also not filed any full and final settlement letter or any No Dues Certificate (NDC) issued by the OPs pertaining to the present loan account no. 2448725. The complainant intentionally did not repay the complete outstanding dues inspite of being aware that towards repayment of EMI, he has issued PDC's drawn on ICICI Bank" Limited, Ambala and his EMI PDC were returned unpaid due to insufficient fund and as per the terms and conditions of the loan he was liable to pay the charges and interest applicable to the loan account. The appropriate status of the loan account has been updated in the CIBIL records by the OPs. complainant is not entitled for NOC. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by OPs and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with exemplary costs.
4.           Learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of the complainant as Annexure PA alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-18  and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs tendered affidavit of Gaganpreet, POA, HDFC Bank, Ambala as Annexure OP/A alongwith document as Annexure OP-1 and closed the evidence on behalf of the OPs.
5.            We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the case file.
6.           Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that by not issuing NOC/NDC to the complainant despite the fact that he had paid the entire loan amount and on the other hand, demanding more amounts, the OPs are deficient in providing service and also adopted unfair trade practice.
7.           On the contrary, the learned counsel for the OPs while reiterating the objections taken in the written reply submitted that since the complainant failed to make timely repayment of the loan amount and on number of occasions, the cheques submitted by him were dishonoured, as such, he is still liable to make the remaining payment of Rs. 48,751/-, in case, he needs NOC/NDC qua the loan account in question.
8.           The first question that falls for consideration is as to whether this Commission has territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide this complaint? It may be stated here that since the complainant is a resident of Ambala, which falls under the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission as such, in this view of the matter, this Commission has territorial jurisdiction to decide this complaint in view of Section 34 (2) (d) of CPA 2019 and therefore, objection taken by the OPs in this regard is rejected.
9.           Now  coming to the objection taken by the OPs that this complaint is barred by limitation, it may be stated here that it is the definite case of the complainant that it was for the first time in November 2021, when he was again in need of the loan, he went to the OPs and asked for a loan, upon which the OPs told the complainant that he had already defaulted the payment of his previous loan amount and a sum of Rs.47,534/- is still outstanding against him, meaning thereby it was for the first in November 2021 only, that when the said fact came to his knowledge. At the same time, there is nothing on record placed by the OPs that the said fact of alleged balance amount of Rs.47,534/- was ever brought to  the notice of the complainant and as such this Commission can believe the version of the complainant to be true in this regard. If this is the case of the complainant, it can very well be said that this complaint filed on 03.12.2021 is not barred by limitation because of law settled by the Hon’ble Delhi State Commission in Delhi Development Authority Vs. Sh.Jagdeep Bali, (2018) 2 ConLT 571, in which it was very clearly held that limitation period will start from the date of knowledge of the event. As such, this objection of the OPs did not sustain and is accordingly rejected.
10.           Now, the moot question which falls for consideration is, as to whether, the complainant is liable to make any  amount to the OPs for getting NOC/NDC qua the loan account in  dispute or not. It may be stated here that it is coming out from the statement of account dated 02/11/2021, Annexure C-18 that the complainant had availed loan to the tune of Rs.34,986/- from the OPs, which was repayable by him in 24 installments @Rs.2140/-. It is further coming out from payment receipts starting from 13.03.2006 till 12.05.2008, Annexure C-1 to C-17 respectively that the complainant had paid total amount of Rs.41,580/- to the OPs against the loan amount of Rs.34,986/-. Though, it has been stated by the OPs that the complainant defaulted number of times, while making repayment of loan amount for the period from 13.03.2006 till 12.05.2008, as the cheques submitted by him were dishonoured on many occasions, yet, perusal of the said payment receipts reveal that in none of the said receipts, the OPs levied any cheque bounce charges, penal interest or any other charges. At the same time, not even a single evidence has been placed on record except the statement of account Annexure OP-1 to prove that any reminder/notice was ever sent by the OPs to the complainant qua delay in making payment or that any letter qua payment of penal interest, cheque bounce charges etc. followed by any reminder were sent by the OPs to the complainant during 13.03.2006 till 12.05.2008 or even thereafter, till filing of this complaint. Under these circumstances, we are of the view that OPs have no occasion to demand any amount from the complainant after passing of so many years and have committed deficiency in providing service by not issuing the NOC/NDC to the complainant, qua the loan account in question. It is thus not only liable to provide the NOC/NDC to the complainant but is also liable to pay compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him alongwith litigation expenses.
11.           In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby allow the present complaint and direct the OPs, in the following manner:-  
    1. To issue NOC/NDC to the complainant qua the loan account in question. 
    2. To pay Rs.3,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.
    3. To pay Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses.

                   The OPs are further directed to comply with the aforesaid directions within the period of 45 days, from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order, failing which the OPs shall pay interest @ 8% per annum on the awarded amount, from the date of default, till realization. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

 Announced:- 22.09.2023

 

(Vinod Kumar Sharma)	(Ruby Sharma)	(Neena Sandhu)
Member	Member	President