BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Yogesh Gaba s/o Sh.Hans Raj Gaba, R/o # 3356, Sector 46-C, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

                 V E R S U S

1]  Axis Bank Ltd., through its Circle Head Sh.Karan Butalia, SCO No.369-370, Second Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh.

2]  Axis Bank Ltd., North Zone Office, through its Head (HR) Ms.Bharti Sharma/Sh.Suresh Mehra, First Floor, Asoka Estate, 24, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi.

3]  Branch Manager, Axis Bank Ltd., SCO No.10, Sector 10, Panchkula.

                      ……Opposite Parties

CORAM:   SH.P.D.GOEL                PRESIDENT

         SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL       MEMBER

         DR.(MRS).MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA  MEMBER

Argued by: Sh.A.P.S.Guliani, Counsel for Complainant.

          Sh.Jatin Kumar Counsel for OPs

PER P.D.GOEL, PRESIDENT

         Precisely put, the complainant, being an employee of OP Bank, availed Staff Housing Loan of Rs.15.00 lacs, on 28.7.2009, for the purchase of Flat No.3205, Paradise Enclave, Sector 50-D, Chandigarh, repayable in 240 equated monthly installments of Rs.7813/- (Ann.C-1).  The OP Bank was authorized vide Ann.C-2 to deduct the EMIs from the salary of complainant. The complainant gave his resignation to OP Bank on 27.8.2010 (Ann.C-3), which was confirmed by the Officer of OP-1 vide letter dated 28.9.2010 (Ann.C-4). The complainant vide letter dated 1.10.2010, requested OP-2 to convert the home loan from staff rate to commercial rate, being no more staff member of OP Bank.  He also gave another address to OP Bank, authorizing it, to recover the dues payable from his saving bank account No.067010100331210, Sector 10, Panchkula Branch, besides requesting to refund the GSLI settlement balance of dues, if any, payable to the complainant and the same be credited to his saving bank account (Ann.C-5 to C-7).  Thereafter, complainant left India, for joining his new assignment in Canada.  But to the utter surprise of the complainant, the OP No.3, instead of adjusting the balance loan amount from his saving bank account, issued a letter dated 18.7.2011 followed by recall notice dated 28.7.2011 (Ann.C-8 & C-9) asking him to pay the outstanding dues of Rs.14,69,598. 

         It is the allegation of the complainant that the OP Bank wrongly & illegally freezed his account without any notice and marked a lien of Rs.1.00 lakh on 28.1.2011 and for an amount of Rs.2.00 lakh on 11.4.2011. Due to this act of OP Bank, even one of the cheque of the complainant amounting to Rs.15,000/- was dishonoured, besides cancellation of transactions of three mutual fund sips of Rs.1000/- each. 

         It is asserted that the even the officials of the OP use to visit the house of the complainant and gave threats, as such he along with his wife had to return to India from Canada thereby causing huge financial loss.  Ultimately, the home loan account as well as provident fund account of the complainant was settled by the OP Bank on 26.9.2011, while he was given relieving letter on 29.10.2011 (Ann.C-10 & C-11). Then, complainant issued a legal notice to the OPs, thereby claiming a sum of Rs.7,88,703/- from the OP Bank on account of loss of earning, compensation etc., but it was not replied.  Hence, this complaint alleging the above act of OPs as gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

2]       OP filed reply and took preliminary objection to the effect that complaint is not covered under Consumer Protection Act due to the relationship between the complainant and Ops as employee and employer.

         It is admitted that Staff Loan was availed by the complainant vide sanction letter Ann.C-1. The submission and acceptance of resignation of complainant dated 27.8.2010 has also been admitted. 

         It is stated that it was the duty of the complainant to clear the home loan account, especially when he admits that he was having sufficient amount to adjust the loan amount in another bank account. It is denied that the complainant ever requested the OP Bank to convert the staff hosing loan to commercial rate of interest and to recover the outstanding dues from his saving bank account maintained in Sector 10, Panchkula Branch.

         It is submitted that it is only the complainant who has to make the payments to close his loan account with the answering OPs, hence the complainant himself delayed in making the payment in his loan account.  With regard to provident fund of the complainant, the answering OPs immediately put the same in process upon completion of required formalities. Rest of the allegations have been denied and it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

3]      Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4]      We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

5]       The ld.Counsel for the complainant contended that the complainant availed Staff Housing Loan of rs.15.00 lacs on 28.7.2009 for the purchase of a Flat, repayable in 240 equated monthly installments of Rs.7813/- qua Ann/C-1.  The complainant authorized the Bank to deduct the EMIs from his Salary vide Ann.C-2.  It was further argued that the complainant gave his resignation on 27.8.2010 and thereafter made a request vide letter dated 01.10.2010 to OP No.2 to convert the Home Loan from Staff Rate to Commercial Rate. The complainant also authorized the OP Bank to recover the dues payable from his Saving Bank Account No.067010100331210, Sector 10, Panchkula Branch.  It was further argued that OP No.3 instead of adjusting the balance loan amount from his saving bank account, issued a letter dated 18.7.2011 to pay the outstanding dues of Rs.14,69,598/-.  The OP Bank also wrongly & illegally freezed the account of the complainant without any notice and also marked a lien of Rs.1.00 lakh on 8.1.2011 and for Rs.2.00 lakh on 11.4.2011 and due to this, one cheque of the complainant amounting to Rs.15,000/- was dishonoured besides cancellation of three mutual fund SIPs of Rs.1000/- each.

6]       The ld.Counsel for the OPs raised the arguments that the complainant is not a consumer.  It was the duty of the complainant to clear Home Loan Account.  The complainant never made any request to OP Bank to convert the Home Loan from Staff Rate to Commercial Rate nor authorized to recover the dues from his saving bank account maintained in Sector 10 Branch, Panchkula.  It was lastly argued that the letters Ann.C-5 & C-6, dated 01.10.2010, respectively were never received by the OP Bank.  The other facts are admitted.

7]       The controversy pending between the parties can be put in narrow compass.  The point for consideration is whether the complainant ever made a request to OP Bank to convert the Home Loan from Staff Rate to Commercial Rate and also to recover the outstanding dues from his Saving Bank Account maintained with Sector 10, Panchkula Branch. The answer to this is in the negative.

8]       Annexure C-1 is the Sanction Letter and its close scrutiny reveals that the complainant availed the Staff Housing Loan.  It is also clear that OP bank has not charged any Processing Charges from the complainant.  Annexure C-3 is the notice of resignation, dated 27.8.2010, wherein the complainant has submitted resignation due to personal reasons and request has been made to accept it and to issue relieving letter from 27.9.2010. 

9]       The OP Bank has accepted the resignation of the complainant vide Ann.C-4, dated 28.9.2010 and the final relieving letter was issued on 29.10.2011 (Ann.C-11).

10]      The contention of the ld.Counsel for the OPs is that the letter dated 01.10.2010 with regard to conversion of Home Loan from Staff Rate to Commercial Rate (Ann.C-5) and letter dated 01.10.2010 (Ann.C-6) wherein the OP Bank was alleged to be authorized to recover the dues payable by the complainant from his saving bank account with Sector 10, Panchkula Branch, have never been received by the Bank.  There is not an iota of evidence on the file to prove that the said letters Ann.C-5 & C-6 were ever received by or reached to the OP Bank.  Therefore, the complainant is estopped from raising the plea that he made a request to the Op bank to convert his Home Loan from Staff Rate to Commercial Rate and also authorized it to recover the dues payable from his saving bank account with Sector 10 Branch, Panchkula.

11]      During the course of arguments, on a specific query made by the Fora, the ld.Counsel for the complainant has also failed to convince that the letters Ann.C-5 & C-6, referred to above, were ever received by or reached to the Op bank.  Thus, we have no hesitation in concluding that the complainant had never made any such requests to the OP Bank to convert his Home Loan from Staff Rate to Commercial Rate nor authorized the OP bank to recover the dues payable from his Saving Bank Account, Sector 10 Branch, Panchkula.

12]      As a result of the above discussions, we are of the opinion that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of OPs.  Therefore, the complaint stands dismissed.  Parties are left to bear their own costs.

         Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.