Jharkhand

Bokaro

CC/17/66

Bindeshwari Prasad Verma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Head, HDFC Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Bishwanath Sharma

23 Mar 2022

ORDER

1. Complainant has filed this case with prayer for direction to O.P. to issue NOC in respect to loan account and to pay Rs. 34,806/- against NOC and for payment of Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the complainant.

 

2. Complainant’s case in brief is that in the year 2003 he purchased a Car after obtaining loan from the HDFC Bank Ltd. which was re-paid completely. Further case is that on suggestion of the bank again complainant obtained loan of Rs. 1,05,562/- as used car financed loan which was to be paid in 36 months and EMI was fixed Rs. 3970/- for which 36 cheques were handed over to the Bank concerned. Further case is that three cheques of EMI were dishonored for which a case u/s 138 NI Act was filed in the Court of J.M. First class Jamshedpur in which Judgment of acquittal was passed. After that very Judgment when complainant approached the Bank he was informed that Rs. 478/- is outstanding dues which was deposited on 24.08.2016 through cheque No. 00141. Further case is that inspite of repeated request O.P. Bank has not issued NOC on one or other pretext, thereafter legal notice was served on O.P. having negative response. Due to illegal act of the O.P. Bank petitioner is suffering because his PAN has in CIBIL causing harassment and now O.P. is demanding Rs. 34806/- for NOC and Rs. 10,000/- on account of chasing for NOC, hence case has been filed with above mentioned prayer.
3. W.S. has been filed mentioning therein that the case is not maintainable before this Commission because in case of grant of loan relationship between both the parties is of creditor & debtor hence Consumer Protection Act is not applicable. Further reply is that till 17.07.2017 there is dues of Rs. 32059/- against the complainant and without its clearance NOC was not possible in this way there is no negligence or deficiency in service by the O.P. Further reply is that this O.P. is ready to issue NOC on payment of dues amount hence it is prayed to dismiss the case.
4.  Complainant has produced two witness namely Pankaj Kumar Verma and Bindeshwari Prasad Verma as C.W. 1 and 2 respectively.
5.  On behalf of O.P. one witness namely Vivek Kumar has been produced and examined.
6. As documentary evidence the photo copy of the certified copy of complaint case No. 2124/2011, photo copy of account statement have been filed.
7.  Only question for consideration by this Commission is whether Act of O.P. Bank in respect to non issuance of NOC is justified or not ? Whether complainant is entitled to get relief as claimed ?
8.   It is admitted fact that complainant has obtained loan of Rs. 1,05,562/- which was to be paid in 36 monthly installments of Rs. 3970/- each as EMI for which 36 cheques were issued by the complainant. Further admitted is that amongst those 36 cheques three were dishonored.
9.  Up-to-date account statement issued on 08.03.2022 has been brought on record by the Bank concerned On careful perusal of the contents of para 3 (VIII) of the complaint petition it appears that complainant has asserted that only Rs. 478/- was outstanding dues which was paid through cheque No. 00141 on 24.08.2016 . It has been mentioned that copy of that cheque is being annexed with complaint petition but record shows that no such copy has been annexed with the complaint petition. Statement of account shows that on 24.08.2016 or date near to 24.08.2016 there is no payment by the complainant in his loan account. Statement for the further shows that on 08.03.2022 total dues was Rs. 42,519/- to be paid by the complainant to the O.P. Bank. No where it has been proved that the account statement is not in accordance with the actual transactions between the parties. The oral evidence is having no importance in view of the banking law and account statement maintained by the Bank.
10.   In light of above discussion we are of the view that action of the Bank is based on justified and lawful reason and claim of the complainant is not based on true and correct facts. Hence complainant is not entitled to get any relief from this Commission.
11.  Accordingly this case is being dismissed with cost.