Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/586/2022

Sh. Vivek Sood - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s HDFC Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Praveen Kumar Bhatia

01 Aug 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/586/2022
Date of Institution	:	07/06/2022
Date of Decision	:	01/08/2023

 

Sh. Vivek Sood s/o Sh. Pran Krishan r/o HNo.1444, Sector 61, Mohali.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. Cluster Manager, Car Loan Deptt., M/s HDFC Bank, Plot No.28, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh 160002.
2. Collection Manager, Car Loan Deptt., M/s HDFC Bank, Plot No.28, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh-160002.

… Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                       

 

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Praveen Kumar Bhatia, Counsel for complainant
	:	Ms. Archana, Vice Counsel for Sh. Paras Money Goyal, Counsel for OPs

 

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by Vivek Sood, complainant against the aforesaid opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs).  The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. It transpires from the allegations as projected in the consumer complaint that the complainant had availed car loan facility from the OPs to the tune of ₹5,99,800/-, which was payable in 60 equal monthly installments for a sum of ₹12,597-.  The complainant was good pay master and had paid all the EMIs on regular basis.  It is further alleged that during the COVID situation as well as under moratorium situation given by the banker, OPs had wrongly charged an amount of ₹62,985/- for only six months on the outstanding amount of ₹1,00,000/- as on 10.3.2020. Despite of the moratorium, OPs have charged total interest on whole amount of ₹1,55,820/- for 60 months and in this manner, OPs have charged an amount of ₹50,085/- which the OPs are liable to return the same to the complainant as the aforesaid amount has been charged by the OPs against the RBI instructions. OPs were also served with a legal notice (Annexure C-3), but, nothing has been done by them. The aforesaid act amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. The OPs were requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2. OPs resisted the consumer complaint and filed their written version, inter alia, taking preliminary objections of maintainability, cause of action and concealment of facts.  It is further alleged that the complainant, being proprietor of M/s Sai Print Media, is a borrower of the HDFC Bank. The complainant had approached the OPs for sanction of auto loan for purchase of a vehicle i.e. Swift Dzire, and as such, an amount of ₹5,99,800/- was sanctioned in favour of complainant which was payable in 60 equal monthly installments, regarding which complainant had also executed an agreement (Annexure R-3). The tenure of loan had been increased from 60 to 65 installments in compliance with RBI guidelines as in the year 2020 COVID-19 had arisen and further the Govt. of India had imposed complete lockdown. Accordingly, OPs in compliance with the RBI circular, had granted moratorium to the complainant on 1.4.2020, 31.5.2020, 1.7.2020 and 31.8.2020 during COVID-19 due to which the EMIs had been increased from 60 to 65 months.  On merits, the facts as stated in the preliminary objections have been reiterated. The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
3. Despite grant of sufficient opportunity, rejoinder was not filed by the complainant to rebut the stand of the OPs.

2. In order to prove their case, parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of respective affidavits and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the file carefully.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the parties that the OPs had sanctioned and advanced loan of ₹5,99,800/- in favour of M/s Sai Print Media, of which the complainant is the proprietor, which was payable in 60 equal monthly installments and the period of that 60 months was later on increased to 65 months, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if the OPs are unjustified in  increasing the tenure of the loan from 60 to 65 months and the complainant is entitled for the reliefs prayed for in the consumer complaint, as is the case of the complainant, or if the OPs have rightly increased the loan tenure as per the RBI instructions and the consumer complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed, as is the defence of the OPs.
   2. It has been contended on behalf of the complainant that as it is an admitted case of the parties that the aforesaid loan amount was payable by the complainant in 60 monthly installments and the complainant had been paying the installments regularly to the OPs, during the said period, and further when it is clear on record that the OPs have increased the tenure of loan period from 60 to 65 months, of their own, and thereby charged an amount of ₹50,085/- as interest from the complainant, the consumer complaint deserves to be allowed.
   3. On the other hand, it has been contended on behalf of the OPs that as it stands proved on record that even the complainant is habitual defaulter in not making the payment of loan amount as per the payment schedule, rather most of the cheques issued by the complainant for the payment of the loan amount were dishonoured and the complainant had not made the payment as agreed upon by him and further when it has come on record that five months period was only increased due to moratorium benefit given to the complainant as per the RBI instructions, the consumer complaint of the complainant, being false and frivolous, be dismissed.
   4. There is force in the contention of the OPs as perusal of the statement of account (Annexure C-2), having been relied upon by the complainant, clearly indicates that the complainant had been given benefit of moratorium by the OPs during the COVID period in the year 2020 for five months and that period was only increased by the OPs and the payment plan was accordingly rescheduled.  Not only this, even it is further clear from the statement of account that most of the cheques issued by the complainant on account of payment of loan amount to the OPs were bounced and the said cheques were even bounced within the initial period granted to the complainant for repayment of loan amount i.e. 60 months after the advancement of the loan.
   5. Thus, when it stands proved on record that the complainant himself is defaulter in the repayment of the loan amount, even within the schedule period i.e. within 60 months already given to him for the repayment of the loan amount, and it has further come on record that the period of 60 months was increased to 65 months for the repayment of loan amount on account of moratorium benefit given to the complainant during the COVID-19 pandemic and the OPs have been claiming interest on the loan amount as per the terms and conditions of the agreement, it is unsafe to hold that there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and the present consumer complaint deserves dismissal. 
4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
5. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced 01/08/2023 hg			sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
			Sd/- [Suresh Kumar Sardana] Member