Per Shri S.R. Khanzode – Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member:
(1) This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 16th April, 2010 passed in Consumer Complaint No.212/2009 M/s.Hotel 7 Loves V/s. HDFC Bank Ltd. by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, District Pune (‘Forum below’ in short).
(2) This consumer complaint pertains to charging interest over the debt, i.e. advances/loan on current account as per the credit facility. Deficiency in service alleged against the Bank accordingly. Forum below dismissed the consumer complaint. Feeling aggrieved thereby original Complainant has preferred this appeal.
(3) Undisputed facts are that, Complainant firm originally availed credit facility from one Times Bank which was subsequently taken over by Respondent/original Opposite Party – H.D.F.C. Bank (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Bank’). After taking over on 04.04.2002 overdraft cash credit facility to the extent of `9,50,000/- was made available to the Complainant by the H.D.F.C. Bank. Security in the form of deposits made by one N.R.I. Smt.Gangabai was also given for the said credit facility. Said Gangabai had given authority to her daughter Ms.Janu, wife of one of the partners of Complainant firm, to act on her behalf in respect of those deposits given as security. Subsequently, a dispute arose between the Complainant and the bank over the charging of interest on loan vis-à-vis advances under each credit facility. The dispute remained unsettled. In the month of December, 2006, the bank called upon the Complainant firm for renewal of documents relating to the overdraft and cash credit facility. On 08.01.2007 bank informed the Complainant that the account is overdue and on arrears penal interest @18% will be charged and thereafter w..e.f. 14.02.2007 Complainant’s firm account was seized by the Bank and Complainant firm was restrained from operating said account. Since the dispute is not resolved, Complainant firm requested to encash the security deposit kept by the Complainant. It appears that the Bank did not act upon the instructions of the Complainant firm on the ground that such instructions must come NRI Smt.Gangabai or from authorised person. Thus, ultimately, this consumer complaint was filed.
(4) We heard both parties at length. Perused the record
(5) As far as charging rate of interest is concerned or charging penal rate of interest on defaulted or overdue account is concerned, the contractual terms between the parties do allow charging of such interest. If the account remained unsettled and it may be that if Complainant has valid grievance in respect of settlement of such sort of account, it is a matter of account and cannot be a consumer dispute. As far as deficiency in service on the part of bank for not honouring or encashing the security deposit of Smt.Gangabai towards the settlement of the account is concerned, the bank rightly insisted upon instructions from the depositors, viz.Gangabai or her authorized person Mrs.Janu. Nothing has been shown that such instructions were given to that effect. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is deficiency in service on the part of the Bank.
(6) Considering all these aspects we find no fault with the impugned order. The view taken by Forum below is just and proper and there is no reason to take different view. Holding accordingly, we find appeal being devoid of substance, pass the following order:
O R D E R
(i) Appeal stands dismissed.
(ii) In the given circumstances, no order as to costs.
