Delhi

East Delhi

CC/701/2013

MIRDUL JAIN - Complainant(s)

Versus

H.D.F.C. - Opp.Party(s)

12 Sep 2017

ORDER

                 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT Delhi

                  CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1^st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092                                  

                                                                                                  Consumer complaint no.        701/2013

                                                                                                  Date of Institution               13/08/2013

                                                                                                  Order Reserved on              12/09/2017

                                                                                                  Date of Order                        14/09/2017  

                                                                                                        

In matter of

Mr. Mridul Jain, adult   

R/o- 125, Rishabh Vihar   

Delhi 110092………..……………………....………..……………….………….Complainant

                                                                   

                                                                         Vs

HDFC Bank Ltd.  

4rth Floor, Indian Express Building

9-10, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg,

ITO New Delhi 110002………………………….. ..………………………….Opponent

 

 

Quorum                                                               Sh Sukhdev Singh       President

                                                                              Dr P N Tiwari                Member                                                                                                   

                                                                             

Order by Dr P N Tiwari  Member 

 

Brief Facts of the case                                                                                                 

Complainant, a practicing advocate, took personal loan from OP on dated 26/03/2012 vide Account no. 21015299 after getting impressed by the agent of OP that he would get personal loan in between 6.50,000 to 7 lakh after deducting some process. Thus after seeing all the loan papers, he put his signatures on loan papers and after some time he was given loan amount a sum of Rs 6,68.421/- against total loan amount of Rs. 6,82,000/-. He also got all the loan documents where it was shown a sum of Rs 10,290/- were deducted as ‘loan processing fee’ and Rs 60/- as stamp duty and ‘Gap Interest’ was also added. After seeing break up of loan amount and deduction of certain amount from loan by OP, the complaint lodged complaint telephonically on 02/04/2012 at 8pm. He did not get any reply from OP bank then again complained to OP bank on 28/11/2012 and on 09/12/2012. It had been stated that even after complaining several times, he did not get any reply, so he again sent email on 16/04/2012.

Later OP told that his loan tenure was for 60 month @ 15.75% and deductions were as per the loan agreement. So, seeing illegal, negligent behavior of OP bank, complainant suffered financial loss, mental harassment and damage of his legal professional which he could not express in words. Hence, he filed this complaint and claimed for compensation at least Rs 50,000/- @ 24% with refund of illegally deducted process fee and Rs 10/ extra on stamp duty.      

 

OP submitted written statement through their authorized representative Mr Rajesh Kumar R (Anne. A) and denied all the allegations of deficiency labeled against them in complaint. It was admitted that complainant had taken personal loan as per terms of form vide no. 7273889 (Ann. B) where annual salary of complainant had been shown Rs 455000/- as he was working in CBI for over 3 years as Central Govt. employee and had opted personal loan for 7,00000/- for 60 months and OP acted as per terms and conditions in loan agreement (Anne. C) and complainant had agreed on all the terms of loan agreement form with promissory note signed by the complainant on dated 22/03/2012. The annexed disbursement advice was given by OP which was accepted by him (Anne. D). OP had also annexed all the emails received and sent (Anne. E to G).

OP had also took reference of “Bharti Knitting Co. vs DHL worldwide Express Courier” (1996) 4SCC 704 where Forum and Commissions are not entitled to modify terms and conditions of agreement which had arrived between the parties and when there is an acute dispute relating to facts, Forums and Commissions ought not have gone behind the terms of agreement and in such condition, parties be referred to Civil Court.

It was further stated that complainant had properly read over all the documents of loan and filled the loan form and put his signatures where it was clearly mentioned for total loan amount and deductions as per terms including process fee which would according to the type of loan. The sanctioned loan amount was for 60 months. Complainant did not raise any query about loan issue or mode of payment. The rate of interest (ROI) and process fee was very well explained to him and raising issues pertaining to illegal deductions were totally wrong and unjustified.   

It was stated that complainant was a practicing advocate and an educated person and not a layman who could say that he did not read the loan documents.  As far as Gap Interest period was concerned, it was stated that EMI was disbursed from 24/03/2012 and first EMI date was 04/05/2012 and it was more than 30 days, so interest was deducted from loan amount as per loan agreement and here the amount was Rs 3289/-which was as per clause 2.2 of personal loan agreement. The interest was @ rate of 16%/per annum and process fee was charged @ the rate of 1.5% of loan amount which was 10230/- as per loan agreement.  As far as stamp duty charges Rs 60/- was concerned, it was as per laws applicable to the states and other services charges. So there was no deficiency in services in OP’s work.            

Complainant submitted his rejoinder and evidences on affidavit and he affirmed on oath that all the facts and evidences were correct and nothing had been hidden. Complainant had also submitted transcript of some SMS sent to OP regarding his grievances on 04/04/2012 and 30/11/2012.

OP also submitted their evidences on affidavit through Mr. Ashish Singh, Manager Legal with OP bank and stated on oath that OP working was as per Agreement terms of Loan Form and all the terms were properly understood by the complainant and had put his signatures in Hindi on every place it was required. Thus, there no harassment by OP and prayed for the dismissal of this complaint. 

Arguments were heard from both the counsels of the parties and after perusing file, order was reserved.

We perused the facts and evidence submitted by complainant and OP. It is evident that complainant had taken personal loan as per the agreement terms and had cleared also with OP. There was no issue or objections pertaining to EMI, but had raised issues after disbursement of loan amount for Rs 10/- and process fee taken by OP for his loan amount. We have seen that OP did not act any where illegally or committed any deficiency in their services.

More so, we have gone through all the documents pertaining personal loan process documents of OP bank which were as per Loan Agreement and complainant had gone through each and every para of loan documents as at many places complainant had put his marks, but no objection was raised before signing the documents.

So we cannot say that OP bank had done wrong intentionally in deducting Rs 10/- in stamp duty or had taken process fee illegally. Certainly it seems that complainant had filed this complaint as afterthought in reference to the terms of loan agreement, but we have taken reference of citation Bharti Knitting Co. vs DHL worldwide Express Courier” (1996) 4SCC 704 submitted by OP as law has been very correctly laid down by the Hon. Supreme Court.

 

Hence, we are of the opinion that this complaint has no merit and the same deserve to be dismissed without cost, that being so, the complaint is dismissed without cost.  

The copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules and file be consigned to the record room.

 

(Dr) P N Tiwari -  Member                                                                     Sukhdev Singh - President