DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No. 420/12
Ms. Harmeet Kaur Sethi,
A-37, G Floor, Rajouri Garden,
New Delhi – 110027.
Also at: 7/(148), Subhash Nagar,
Ground Floor, New Delhi-110027. -Complainant
Vs
HDFC Bank Ltd.,
G-4, Ground Floor, Surya Kiran Bldg.,
19, Kasturba Gandhi Marg,
New Delhi – 110001. -Opposite Party
Date of Institution: 05.07.12 Date of Order: 19.01.16
Coram:
N.K. Goel, President
Naina Bakshi, Member
O R D E R
Complainant had admittedly taken personal loan of Rs. 3,00,300/- from the predecessor of the OP (Centurion Bank of Punjab) on 3.3.2007 which was repayable in 60 monthly instalments of Rs. 7737/- each vide loan account No. LOMP20110000321859.
The case of the complainant appears to be that the entire loan amount had been paid and a false complaint filed by the OP U/s 138 of the NI Act was withdrawn from the court of the MM, Dwarka, New Delhi on 31.5.2010 by the counsel for the OP by making a statement that as per the instructions of the Bank, no loan amount was outstanding in the loan account of the complainant. According to the complainant, even thereafter the officials/musclemen of the OP are harassing her and her family members. Therefore, her prayer in the complaint is that the OP be directed to issue NOC in respect of the said loan amount and to pay Rs. 80,000/- for mental harassment etc. and Rs. 20,000/- as cost of litigation.
The case of the OP, on the other hand, and which is not controverted in the rejoinder or in the affidavit of the complainant, is inter-alia that the complainant still owes Rs. 4,99,678/- to the OP and their Arbitrator has also passed an award dated 13.2.13 in Arbitration Case No. 9541 of 2011 titled HDFC Bank Ltd. Vs. Harmeet Kaur Sethi in favour of the OP and against the complainant. According to the OP, the complainant has filed the present complaint by intentionally suppressing and withholding the material facts i.e. non-payment of the EMIs as per the repayment schedule. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
Needless to say that the averments made in the respective pleadings have been repeated in the affidavits of the parties.
Written arguments have been filed.
We do not want to go into the controversy whether the complainant has paid or not the entire EMIs or has cleared the entire loan amount or whether she still owes the amount mentioned hereinabove to the OP. We also we do not want to make any comment on the decision rendered by the Arbitrator. The contentions made by the parties require recording of evidence and examination/cross-examination of the witnesses. Therefore, we hold that no consumer dispute is made out.
In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the complaint and dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
(NAINA BAKSHI) (N. K. GOEL) MEMBER PRESIDENT
Announced on 19.01.16.
Case No. 420/12
19.1.2016
Present – None
Vide our separate order of even date pronounced, the complaint is dismissed. Let the file be consigned to record room.
(NAINA BAKSHI) (N.K. GOEL)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
By D K Yadav