THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHADRAK.
Present- Sri Raghunath Kar, President
Sri Basanta Kumar Mallick ,Member
Afsara Begum, Member
Dated the 1st day of November, 2017
C.D case No 36 of 2015
Rabindra Nayak
S/o Late Purusottam Nayak
Vill- Dagarapada
P.O- Naguan, P.S- Bhandaripokhari
Dist- Bhadrak …………………………Complainant
Versus
- Branch Manager
H.D.F.C. Bank , Bhadrak Branch
At- Bye-pass, P.O/P.S/Dist- Bhadrak
- The Manager
H.D.F.C Bank, Two wheeler deptt.
Retail Asset Division
Junction of Janpath and
Gandhi Marg, Unit-iii Kharavel nagar
Bhubaneswar,-751001
- Manager, H.D.F.C Bank Ltd
Retail Asset collection, 4th floor
Titanic Building
26A- Narayan Properties
Candivali, Andheri East
Mumbai, 400072 …………………..Opposite Parties
Advocate for complainant- Sri Niranjan Sahu
Advocate for OPs- sri Manoj Kumar Panda &
Date of hearing- 14.02.2017
Date of order- 01.11.2017
SRI BASANTA KUMAR MALLICK, MEMBER
This dispute arises out of a complaint filed by the complainant alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice.
The facts disclosed in the complaint are to the effect that the complainant is a customer of the OPs and became a consumer after having availed of a two wheeler loan from the OPs for purchase of a Hero Honda Passion Plus bike for his personal use. On the request of the complainant, OPs sanctioned a loan of Rs 34500/- and directed the complainant to submit 24 numbers of undated signed blank cheques which are barely necessary for release of such loan. Complainant complied the direction of OPs and submitted 24 numbers of cheques received from central Bank of India, Bhadrak Branch as the complainant maintains his account in the said Branch. After execution of all relevant documents and submission of afore mention undated signed blank cheques, complainant was able to get the motor cycle from Sanjib Auto and registered the said motor cycle Vide Regtn No- OR22B 7403. While advancing loan by the OPs the repayment period was fixed for 24 equal monthly installments commencing from 05.04.2008 to 05.03.2010. Accordingly the complainant has paid the loan to liquidate the said loan account out of which maximum installments have been received by the agent of the OPs issuing receipt, from the door stop of the complainant and few installments have been paid by the complainant at the Branch office of OPs at By-pass, Bhadrak and the amount of monthly due in respect Five installments such as 15.07.2008, 08.05.2008, 09.06.2008,19.08.2008 and 15.04.2008 were realized on presentation of cheques from the account of the complainant maintained with central Bank of India Bhadrak Branch and in this manner the complainant has paid the entire dues to squire up the loan demand and also to close the account. After payment of full dues to OPs, complainant demanded for issue of NOC to the OP No-1 at Bhadrak who assured to be issued after a week or so from the office of OP No-2 by post. Relying on the assurance, complainant waited for receipt of NOC but failed to get so as per commitment of OP No-1, complainant ran to the office of OP No-1 time and again to know about the issue of NOC but did not get any positive result. Instead of receiving the No objection certificate from OPs, complainant received a Notice from the secretary District Legal Aid Service Authority to be present on 24.11.2013 in the National Lok Adalat at Bhadrak. Such fraudulent activity of OPs compelled the complainant to serve notice upon OPs dt. 07.12.2013 requesting issue of NOC within 15 days which was answered by the legal counsel of OPs demanding payment of Rs 10993/- towards late payment charges and cheque bouncing charges failing which NOC would not be issued. Finding no alternative, the complainant filed dispute in this Forum praying for a direction to OPs to issue NOC along with compensation and cost.
Although the case was admitted on 25.03.2015, OPs appeared through their advocates on 29.07.2016 after elapse of about one year and four months and did not submit any written version till OPs were set ex-partee on 07.01.2017. Non-submission of written version by the OPs till ex-partee order was passed provides ample scope to believe that the OPs had nothing to say against the allegations of the complainant in the complaint.
In course of ex-partee hearing, the complainant submitted that he had availed a sum of Rs 34,500/- as loan for purchase of a two wheeler which was repayable in 24 monthly installments @ Rs 1843/- per month. The due date for such repayment of loan installment was fixed to 5th day of every month commencing from April, 2008. After availing the loan, the complainant started repayment of the loan dues @ Rs 1843/- per month from April 2008 and last payment was made on 20.05.2001, two and half month after the last installment was due to be paid.
As per repayment schedule available on record, it reveals that the complainant had to pay a sum of Rs 34,500/- under principal and Rs 9,732/- under interest, total of which comes to Rs 44232/- along with late payment charges @2.50% interest per month on the overdue amount as incorporated in the terms and conditions of the sanction letter issued to the complainant by the OPs. It is observed from the repayment receipts furnished by the complainant that the repayment has been made in 24 installments but not on due dates as fixed in the repayment schedule. According to repayment schedule, complainant had to pay Rs 44232/- as against which he has actually paid Rs 46123/- and as such the complainant has paid Rs 1891/- in excess to the OPs.
When the OPs caused inordinate delay in issuing the NOC, complainant issued notice through advocate requesting to issue NOC within 15 days from the date of receipt of notice. In reply to such notice, the advocate of OPs communicated in stating that since the complainant has defaulted in payment of Rs 10,993/- and the same is still outstanding against him , the NOC cannot be issued unless full and final payment is made. Hence the question arises here that if such is the reason for non- issuance of NOC, why the opposite parties did not serve any notice upon the complainant and why OPs kept themselves silent till the complainant serves notice upon the OPs ? Such unanswered question creates doubt about the fairness trade practice of the OPs and leads to believe that no dues is outstanding against the complainant and the complainant is not liable to pay any dues to the OPs. As regards cheque bouncing charges of Rs 9,390/- as demanded by the OPs through their advocate, it is seen that the OPs have never communicated to the complainant as to how many cheques have been bounced and what is the amount to be paid by the complainant which attributed to monopoly trade practice and in other words, the said actions of OP is called unfair trade practice. That apart the OPs have not preferred to submit written version on the allegations in the complaint which indicates that the OPs are avoiding to furnish the facts and documents before the Forum. From the facts as above it is held that OPs have caused deficiency in service and resorted to unfair trade practice. Therefore it is held by the Forum that the complainant has made full and final payment for closures of his loan account held with HDFC Bank and no dues is to be paid to the OPs. Hence it is ordered:-
ORDER
The complaint be and the same is allowed ex-parte against the Ops. The O.Ps are directed to issue No objection certificate to the complainant along with Rs 3000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs 2000/- as cost of litigation within a period of 30 days from the date of issue of this order failing which penalty @Rs 50/- shall be charged on the Ops for each day delay from the date of default till realization.
This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this 1st day of November, 2017 under my hand and seal of the Forum.
