DIST.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KHURDA, BHUBANESWAR:

                                                -ooOoo-

C.D. CASE NO.259/ 2020

Tankadhar Bisoi , aged about 57 years,

S/o Charan Biusoi, At – MIG-92, Phase -3, Ananta Vihar,

Pokhariput, BDA Colony, Bhubaneswar,

Dist – Khurda – 751020.

….     Complainant

-Vrs.-

1. HDFC Bank Ltd., HDFC Bank  House,

Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel,

West Mumbai - 400013, Maharashtra,

Through its Managing Director.

2. HDFC Bank Ltd.,

Nayapalli, Near Kalyani Mandap, Unit – VIII,

Bhubaneswar , Dist : Khurda,

Through its Branch Manager,

                                                          ….     Opp. Parties

For the complainant      :         Mr. K.C.Prusty (Adv.)

For the O.Ps                            :         Mr. D.P.Tripathy & Associates   (Adv.)

DATE OF FILING         :         15/12/2020

DATE OF ORDER        :         16/02/2023

ORDER

S.TRIPATHY, MEMBER(W)  

1.       This is an application U/s 35 of the C.P.Act, 2019.

2.       The complainant’s case in brief is that, he had incurred  a personal loan of Rs.8,16,482/- from the OP.2 in the month of October, 2016. The agreement period ranged from 04/11/2016 to 04/05/2022. Due to intervention of Covid-19 pandemic, the complainant approached the OPs to reschedule the repayment of installments but the OPs did not listen. The OPs did not provide moratorium period to the complainant. It amounts to unfair trade practice as well as deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.  Hence this case.

3.       On the other hand, the  OPs  filed written version alleging therein that, the relationship between the complainant and the OPs is that of borrower and lender  and as such, there is no consumer dispute between them. Further it is alleged that, under a loan agreement, the lender  has the right to recover the installments from the complainant and as such, it does not amount to unfair trade practice. It is further alleged by the OPs that, due to intervention of Covid, the complainant availed moratorium and there was re-structure of repayment of installments as per the Reserve Bank of India guidelines.  Still then, the complainant defaulted in repaying the installments and as on 27/11/2021, there was an outstanding of Rs.1,14,204.12 against the complainant.   It is further pleaded by the OPs that, the complainant has not come to the Commission in clean hands, Therefore, the complaint is not maintainable  and as such, it is liable to be dismissed.

4        Perused the materials on record. The admitted facts are that, the complainant incurred a loan of Rs.8,16,482/- from the OPs and as per repayment schedule, he did not repay the loan and defaulted to the extent of Rs.1,14,204.12. When the complainant had incurred the loan, it is his duty to repay it. If he does not repay the installments in time, the borrower has every right under  law to recover it. In this backdrop, there cannot be any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of the lender i.e. OPs. To our mind, this complaint does not bear  any merit.  Hence it is ordered.

ORDER

The complaint is  hereby  dismissed on contest  against the OPs    being devoid of merit.

The order is pronounced on this day the 16^th February, 2023  under the seal & signature of the President and Member (W) of the Commission.

                                                                            (S.TRIPATHY)

                                                                               MEMBER(W) 

Dictated & corrected by me

           Member ( W)

                                                                             I agree

                                                                                                                                                 President   

                                                                             (K.C.RATH)

Transcribed by Smt.M.Kanungo, Sr.Steno :