Delhi

North

CC/293/2024

KISHAN PAL LALLAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDB FINANCIAL SERVICE LIMITED - Opp.Party(s)

24 May 2024

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District)

[Govt. of NCT of Delhi]

Ground Floor, Court Annexe -2 Building, Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi- 110054

 

Consumer Complaint No.293/2024

In the matter of

Kishan Pal Lallan

S/o Sh Lallan

R/o House No. 9497

Behind Sanatan Dharam Mandir

Tokri Walan, Azad Market

Delhi- 110006                                   …               Complainant

Versus

HDB Financial Service Limited

Through its Director/ Manager/ Authorised Person

Office at: 6164/13, Second Floor

Main Bara Hindu Rao Raod

Azad Market, Delhi- 110006

Registered Office:

Radhika, Second Floor

Law Garden Road, Navaranpura

Ahemadabad, Gujarat- 380009          …               Opposite Party No. 1

 

ORDER

24.05.2024

Present: None for Complainant

(Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar)

1. We have heard the heard the arguments of Shri Sudhir Kumar Bhagel, Ld. Advocate for Complainant on last date of hearing on admissibility of this complaint. The Complainant has alleged unfair trade practice and deficiency of service by M/s HDB Financial Service Limited (OP herein) primarily for the reason that OP has restructured the loan without his consent.
2. The Complainant has obtained a “secured personal loan” from OP herein in the month of September-October 2019. The loan was disbursed and the instalment of EMI of Rs. 8,430/- became due since 04.10.2019. The repayment schedule along with the welcome letter indicates that the EMIs were to be paid since 04.10.2019 to 04.09.2023. It is the case of the Complainant that he could not make payments of four EMI during Covid-19 lockdown period, but afterword, he has been making all payments of the EMIs. It is stated that after completing 48 EMIs, he visited the branch of the OP for obtaining the no-objection certificate, he was informed then he was informed that the loan is not completely paid and the EMIs will continue till 04.02.2026. It is stated by the Complainant that on 14.09.2023, he was given the restricting communication with new payment schedule, which indicates reduced EMIs of Rs. 7,900/- from 04.01.2021 till 04.02.2026.
3. It is further argued on behalf of the Complainant that the OP has restructured the loan w.e.f. 04.01.2021 and has increased the number of EMIs without the knowledge of the Complainant. It is stated that the OP has reduced the EMIs of the Complainant w.e.f 01.01.2022 without his knowledge. He further states that the Complainant has paid EMIs till 04.04.2024 and has paid an additional amount of Rs. 23,700/- to the OP.  Accordingly the Complainant prays for a direction to the OPs to issue NOC and also to refund the excess amount of Rs. 23,700/-.
4. The Complainant has enclosed the bank statement of his savings bank account from where the EMIs were paid. It is seen from the record that the reduced EMIs were paid since 04.01.2021 from Complainant’s bank account bearing no. 374****295 with M/s Kotak Mahindra Bank (Not a party). Perusal of the bank statement, it is seen that for payment of the EMIs of Rs. 7,900/-, the Complainant was making regular deposits of Rs. 8,000/- in cash on the same dates of EMIs collections. This deposit amount has changed on some occasions, but the Complainant ensured that the said bank account is having enough deposit at the time when the EMI of Rs. 7,900/- is collected by the OP every month. This clearly indicates that Complainant was well aware of the fact that the EMIs have been reduced and he used to maintain just enough balance in his bank account so that the EMIs are paid in time.
5. Once the payment is made from the bank account of the Complainant and the Complainant was regularly managing and operating the said bank account to maintain the balance to meet the just requirements of the EMIs payments, it cannot be said that the Complainant was not aware about the restructuring of the loan. Hence we cannot accept the argument that the loan was restructured without knowledge of the Complainant.
6. It is also to be noted here that once the loan was restructured, and the EMIs were reduced from Rs. 8,430/- to Rs. 7,900/-, the number of EMIs is bound to increase. Number of EMIs will also increase as there was admittedly non-payment of four EMIs during Covid-19 lockdown. It is a fact that the Banks cannot charge penalty on the missed EMIs during Covid-19 lockdown, but the Customer cannot deny payment of such missed EMIs. The missed EMIs would also cause increasing of number of EMIs. The Complainant failed to explain as how the increase of EMIS from initial 48 EMIS to 77 EMIs in restructuring is wrong and bad. The Complainant could not give his calculation to show that how the calculation in restructuring is wrong. Further the Complainant also could not explain as to how the number of EMIs can remain same when the loan was restructured and the EMIs were reduced.
7. At this stage, we would like to record that the loan was restructured w.e.f. 04.01.2021, but the Complainant has filed this Complaint only on 13.05.2024. The Complainant alleges that he was not aware of restructuring of the loan, which cannot be accepted for the reasons that we have already explained in this order earlier. Hence, we are of the opinion that there is a delay in filing this complaint.
8. It is to be mentioned here that by its order dated 10.01.2022 In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation [MA No. 21 of 2022 in MA No. 665 of 2021 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020], Hon’ble Supreme Court has further extended the period of limitation as prescribed under general or special laws of the land in respect of all judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings. In compliance of this order, Hon’ble National Commission has also issued Office Order No. 7 vide letter No.A-2/Listing/NCDRC/2021 dated 14/01/2022. In view of the Supreme Court order and Office Order issued by NCDRC, the clock of limitation was stopped from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 and the limitation again started running w.e.f. 01.03.2022. In the case in hand, as the first cause of action arose on 01.01.2022, which falls between the dates when the clock of limitation was stopped, the period of limitation would be calculated from 01.03.2022, when the clock of limitation was put in motion. While calculating limitation w.e.f. 01.03.2022, the limitation in the case in hand expired on 29.02.2024. As this complaint was filed on 13.05.2024, even after applying the benefit of the Supreme Court order and NCDRC office order referred above, there is a delay of 74 days in filing this complaint. The Complainant has neither given satisfactory reason for the delay nor has he filed any application seeking condonation of delay.
9. In this context, we would like to refer to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kandimalla Raghavaiah Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. [(2009) 7 SCC 768], in which Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that for the purpose of calculating the limitation under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, the date on which first cause of action has arisen should be considered. In the case in hand the first cause of action arose on 01.01.2022, when the Opposite Party restructured the personal loan of the Complainant. This restructuring of the loan was within knowledge of the Complainant as he was consciously depositing the exact amount in his bank account so that the reduced EMIs are paid in time. Hence, the argument of the Complainant that he was not aware about the restructuring till he received the letter dated 14.09.2023, is not correct. Therefore the limitation period of two years as prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 starts from this date and not from the date when the Complainant allegedly received the letter dated 14.09.2023. However as the limitation of clock was stopped at the relevant time, which started running only on 01.03.2022, the limitation in this matter is calculated w.e.f. 01.03.2022, which subsequently expired on 29.02.2024, while the complaint was filed on 13.05.2024.
10. Further, in Kandimalla Raghavaiah case (Supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has also held that the complaint is liable to be dismissed, if the delay is not duly explained. In the case in hand, the Complainant has not explained sufficiently and satisfactorily, the reasons for the delay in filing this complaint. In the matter of State Bank of India vs B S Agriculture (I) [(2009) 5 SCC 121], Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that Consumer Forum should deal with the merit of the case only if the complaint is filed within the limitation period or if the Complainant has explained the cause of delay. In such case, the Consumer Forum is required to pass a reasoned order on condonation of delay application. If the Complainant has been filed beyond limitation period and there is no application giving explanation for condonation of delay, the complaint is liable to be out-rightly rejected.
11. We would also like to refer to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Haryana Urban Development Authority vs B K Sood [(2006) 1 SCC 164] in which Hon’ble Supreme Court has been held as under:

“10. Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (referred to as the Act hereafter) expressly casts a duty on the Commission admitting a complaint, to dismiss a complaint unless the complainant satisfies the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that the complainant had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within the period of two years from the date on which the cause of action had arisen.”

12. In the case in hand, the Complainant has not given any sufficient acceptable cause explaining the delay. Hence, while relying on the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court referred above, this Complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground of limitation as well.
13. Accordingly, for the reasons explained above, this complaint is dismissed on the grounds of limitation as well as on merits. No costs.
14. Office is directed to supply the copy of this order to the parties in accordance with law. Upon filing of appropriate application by the Complainant within 7 days from receipt of this order, seeking return original documents filed with the complaint, if any, office is directed to return all original documents, after retaining the photo copy of the same for the records. Thereafter, file be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

 

___________________________

Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar, President

 

 

___________________________

Ashwani Kumar Mehta, Member

 

 

___________________________

Harpreet Kaur Charya, Member