Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

RP/3/2023

Ramesh Karunakaran - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

M/s V.Shankar

26 Apr 2023

ORDER

IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

 

BEFORE :       Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. SUBBIAH                            PRESIDENT

  Thiru R. VENKATESAPERUMAL                               MEMBER

 

R.P.NO.3/2023

 

(Against CMP.No.52/2022 in CC.NO.46/2016 on the file of the DCDRC, Chennai (North)

 

DATED THIS THE 26^th DAY OF APRIL 2023

                            

Ramesha Karunakaran

No.15, Thirumullaivoyal, 7^th Avenue                                M/s.V. Shankar

“A” Sector, Ward 14, Avadi                                               Counsel for

Thiruvallur – 600 109                                               Petitioner / Complainant

 

                  Vs.

 

HDFC Bank

Rep. by its Branch Manager                                      M/s. TKM Saikrishnan &

No.1 Block, No.5, Pari Salai                                 Mrs.N.Premalatha, counsels for

Mogappair (East), Chennai – 37                             Respondent/ Opposite party

 

          This Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner/Complainant praying to set aside the order dt.18.10.2022 in the petition praying to receive the additional documents filed by the Respondent/ opposite party in CMP.No.52/2022 in CC.No.46/2016 before the District Commission, Chennai (North).

 

          This Revision Petition is coming before us today for consideration, upon hearing the arguments of the counsel appearing for both parties, this commission made the following order in the open court.

 

ORDER

 

JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH,   PRESIDENT    (Open Court)

                    

1.       This Revision Petition has been filed as against the order dt.18.10.2022 passed by the District Commission, Chennai (North) in CMP.No.52/2022 in CC.No.46/2016 by allowing the petition filed by the Respondent/ opposite party by praying for filing additional document viz. the Scheme of Amalgamation as a document in the complaint.

2.       The brief facts, which necessitated to file this Revision petition as follows:

          The Revision Petitioner/ Complainant had applied for personal loan for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- with Centurion Bank of Punjab and executed a Personal loan agreement on 5.6.2006.  The complainant had also produced many documents to avail such loan which are marked as Ex.B1 to B10 respectively.  The said loan was sanctioned  as per personal loan agreement dt.5.6.2006 which are marked as Ex.B11 and B12 respectively.  The loan amount was agreed to be paid in 36 EMI’s @Rs.3697/- each from 5.7.2006 to 5.6.2009. 

          While so, as per the notification of Reserve Bank of India, the Centurion Bank of Punjab was merged with HDFC Bank Ltd., from 23.5.2008.  After merger, the Savings Bank account of the complainant was lien marked as per the provision of Sec.171 of Indian Contract Act 1872, and the amount of Rs.11,056.25/- and R.10,000/- was set off on 27.7.2017 and 14.8.2017 respectively, after following all the procedures set out in law.  The complainant had also voluntarily made an online payment to close the loan account. 

          In view of the above, the petitioners/ opposite parties in order to establish the merger of Centurion Bank of Punjab with HDFC Bank, wanted to produce the scheme of Amalgamation as a document in the complaint.  Therefore, the opposite party filed a petition before the District Commission, praying to permit the Respondent / opposite party to file the Scheme of Amalgamation as an additional document in the complaint, which was allowed by the District Commission.  Aggrieved over the said order impugned, the petitioner/Complainant has filed this Revision Petition, praying to set aside the order impugned. 

 

3.       The learned counsel for the Petitioner/ complainant would contend that in the absence of pleading in the version, the District Commission ought not to have permitted the petitioner to file the said document.  Hence the order passed by the District Commission is not sustainable.  Thus prayed for allowing the Revision Petition.

 

4.       Having considered the submissions made we are of the opinion that the merger of the Centurion Bank of Punjab with the HDFC Bank is a known fact and was published in the newspapers, and the details with regard to the amalgamation is available in the public domain itself.  In the above circumstances, the filing of the document viz Scheme of Amalgamation, will not affect the case in any manner, and will not cause any prejudice to the petitioner/complainant.  Therefore, we do not find any substance in the submission made by the learned counsel for the complainant, and therefore there is no compelling circumstances warranting us to interfere with the order of the commission below.  The Revision deserves to be dismissed accordingly.

 

5.       In the result, the Revision Petition is dismissed by confirming the order of the District Commission, Chennai (North) in CMP.No.52/2022 in CC.No.46/2016 dt.18.10.2022.  There is no order as to cost. 

 

 

 

R. VENKATESAPERUMAL                                        R. SUBBIAH

                          MEMBER                                                 PRESIDENT