Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/284/2019

J. Chithra - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC Bank limited - Opp.Party(s)

A.P. Suriya Prakasam

28 Sep 2022

ORDER

Date of Complaint Filed : 18.10.2019

Date of Reservation      : 06.09.2022

Date of Order               : 28.09.2022

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.

 

PRESENT:    TMT. B. JIJAA, M.L.,                                           : PRESIDENT

                       THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L.,           :  MEMBER  I 

                       THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc., MBA.,   : MEMBER II

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.284/2019

WEDNESDAY, THE 28^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022

J.Chithra,

W/o.Vignesh Laksman Chandra,

No. 14, Mylapooran Street,

Royapettah,

Chennai -600 014.                                                            ... Complainant              

..Vs..

The Manager,

HDFC Bank Limited,

Educational Loan Department,

L.A. Plaza,

Opposite to Jeeva Park,

T.Nagar,

Chennai – 600 017.                                                     ...  Opposite Party

 

******

Counsel for the Complainant          : M/s. A.P. Surya Prakasam

Counsel for the Opposite Party       : M/s. T K M Sai Krishnan

 

On perusal of records and upon having treated the written arguments as oral arguments on endorsement made by the Complainant and after having heard the oral arguments of the Counsel for the Opposite Party, we delivered the following:

ORDER

Pronounced by the President Tmt. B. Jijaa, M.L.,

1.      The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and prays to direct the Opposite Party to pay a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- towards compensation for the deficiency of service and to pay a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- towards compensation for the pain and suffering and mental stress suffered by the Complainant along with cost.

2.     The averments of Complaint in brief are as follows:-

The Complainant is a Dental Doctor and to pursue her Post Graduate Degree in MS implantology (2 years course) at Savitha College at Madras she has applied for a total Educational loan of Rs.4,00,000/-. On 27.06.2014 in A/c. No.28343700 and UCIC 44941781 the Opposite Party has agreed to disburse the first installment of Rs.2,00,000/- through her husband L.Vignesh account, A/c No.03231930007730 of HDFC Bank Limited Mylapore Branch. The said total loan of Rs.4,00,000/- to be disbursed in two installments at Rs.2,00,000/- per installment by the Opposite Party bank which has wantonly delayed disbursement of Rs.2,00,000/-. She made alternative arrangement and paid the 1 year college fee of Rs.2,00,000/- from her own funds and the Opposite Party bank has paid the first installment loan amount of Rs.2,00,000/ only in the second year of her studies and the EMI for Rs.2,00,000/- began from the second year onwards as admitted by the Opposite Party by their letter dated 27.06.2014 and both the Complainant and her husband Mr.L.Vignesh was prompt in paying the monthly installment for the actually disbursed educational loan amount of Rs.2,00,000/- only. She wanted to close the loan account and approached the Opposite Party for the same. To her shock and surprise she came to know from the statement of the bank dated 16.10.2018 that the amount financed by the bank is shown as Rs.4,04,031.00/- but the amount disbursed is only Rs.2,04,031.00 and collecting interest from her even for the undisbursed loan amount to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- and she was informed by the Opposite Party bank that the Opposite Party bank is collecting interest for a total sum of Rs.4,00,000/- even though the Complainant was actually disbursed only Rs.2,00,000/- that also after a delay of one year during her second year of studies.  Even though this fact was brought to the Opposite Party bank officials the Opposite Party refused to rectify its mistake and has been rendering deficiency in service by collecting interest for a total undisbursed loan amount of Rs.4,00,000/- inspite of the fact the Complainant was disbursed only Rs.2,00,000/- by the Opposite Party Bank. Instead of settling the issue the Opposite Party is sending rowdy elements in the name of collection agent to the Opposite Party house and contacting the Complainant friends and relatives and damaging the reputation of the Complainant. Hence the Complainant has issued legal notice dated 11.03.2019 to the Opposite Party claiming a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- for the deficiency of service rendered by the Opposite Party as damages which includes for the pain and suffering undergone by the Complainant at the hands of the Opposite Party. Hence the Complaint.

3. Written Version filed by the Opposite Party in brief is as follows:-

         The complaint is preferred by the Complainant is not maintainable and barred by limitation, since the same is filed before this Hon'ble Forum beyond the limitation period of 2 years from the date of cause of action. The Complainant herself stated that, the cause of action arose on 27.06.2014, in such event the complaint ought to have been filed on or before 26.06.2016 within the limitation period of two years from the cause of action, as contemplated under The Consumer Protection Act 1986.

The Complainant approached the Opposite Party Bank for educational loan vide loan application dated 22.05.2014. Based on the documents produced and after verifying the credentials of the Complainant and her husband Mr. L.Vignesh, the loan facility was sanctioned to the Complainant. After reading and understanding the terms and conditions of the loan agreement, the Complainant and her husband had executed the loan agreement dated 25.06.2014. The first tranche of Rs.2,04,031/- was disbursed to the Complainant on 26.06.2014. The second tranche of the loan amount will be discharged only on the request of the borrower/Complainant. The Complainant agreed to repay the said loan amount of Rs.2,04,031/- with an interest @ 17.5% per annum, in a tenure of 72 months starting from 07.08.2014 till 07.07.2020. The Equated Monthly Installment amount was fixed as Rs. 6,838/- and that the said EMI amounts ought to be paid on every 7^th  of each calendar month through ECS debit clearance from Account No. 03231930007730 held by the husband of the Complainant.

The Complainant had dishonoured the EMIs on scheduled date on 17 occasions as on 28.08.2019, which is clearly evident from the statement of accounts filed by the Complainant. When the Complainant was irregular in paying the EMI on schedule dates through ECS, which tantamount to levy of cheque bounce charges and late payment charges as contemplated in the loan agreement motive to escape from the payment of legitimate money due to Opposite Party bank is now trying to create concocted stories and making false allegations against the Opposite Party bank without any basis. In such event as per clause 19.6 Of the loan agreement, the Opposite Party bank shall have a paramount right of set off and in exercise of the banks general lien under law, the bank shall also have a paramount right of lien on all monies, accounts, securities, deposits, goods and other asset and properties belonging to the borrower or standing to the borrower(s) credit (whether singly or jointly with other person/s) which are or may at any time with or in the possession or control of any branch of the bank for any reason or purpose whatsoever. Having knowledge of these facts, the borrowers failed to maintain sufficient amount in the said account No.03231930007730. The loan application submitted by the Complainant was on 22.05.2014 and the same was processed and the first tranche of the loan amount was disbursed on 26.06.2014, in such event the Complainant cannot make wild allegations of delayed disbursal of loan without any basis. It is pertinent to note that, the Complainant had paid the semester fees for the year 2014-15 on 16.04.2014, subsequently the Complainant had applied for the loan vide loan application dated 22.05.2014. The 1^st tranche was disbursed to the Complainant on 26.06.2014 and the 2^nd tranche of the loan amount ought to be disbursed to the Complainant only on her request as contemplated in clause 4 of the loan agreement. It is pertinent to note here that the EMI amount of Rs.6,838/- is calculated only for the loan disbursed and not for the loan For HDFC Bank Ltd sanctioned/financed. Moreover the Complainant had not made any request to the Opposite Party bank for the disbursal of " appropriate period the 2^nd  tranche of loan facility during the appropriate period.  Under Sec. 14 (1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, the term compensation means equivalence and the award of compensation by the forum has to be based on well recognized principles governing the quantification of loss or injury suffered to assess compensation and not arbitrarily and also it has to be established whether the loss alleged was direct result of negligence or whether it is remote. In the absence of such proof the claim cannot be sustained and has to be rejected totally. Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.

4.   The Complainant submitted his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Complainant,  documents were marked as Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-3. The Opposite Party submitted his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Opposite Party, documents were marked as Ex.B-1 to Ex.B-3.

Points for Consideration

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?

2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for reliefs claimed?

3. To what other reliefs the Complainant is entitled to?

Point No.1:-

The contention of the Complainant is that she had availed educational loan from the Opposite Party vide Loan A/c No.28343700 and UCIC No.44941781. Though a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- was sanctioned on 27.06.2014, the Opposite Party had disbursed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- only in the 2^nd year of her studies through her husband’s account and she had to pay the 1^st year fees out of her own funds. She and her husband was prompt in payment of instalments. When she wanted to close the loan account she found that the Opposite Party is collecting interest at an exorbitant rate of 12.5.% per annum for the sanctioned amount of Rs.4,00,000/-though only a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- was disbursed. The Opposite Party is collecting interest for the undisbursed amount of Rs.2,00,000/- also which when brought to the notice of the Opposite Party by the Complainant, the Opposite Party refused to rectify the mistake, which amounted to deficiency of service.

The contention of the Opposite Party that  as stated in the complaint the cause of action arose on 27.06.2016 and the complaint ought to have filed on or before 26.06.2016 within 2 years and hence the complaint is barred by limitation is not acceptable as the schedule of repayment of the instalments  which continues  till 07.07.2020 gives rise to continuous cause of action until then. Hence this complaint is filed within the period of limitation.

As regards the contention that the Complainant had paid first year of college fees out of her own funds and that the loan was sanctioned by the Opposite Party only in the 2^nd year it could be seen from Ex.B-3, Pg.27 the Complainant had paid her first term fees even prior to the sanctioning of the loan. More so even prior to the submission of Loan application to the Opposite Party. Hence the Opposite Party could not be faulted for delay in disbursement.

The main grievance of the Complainant is that the amount sanctioned by the Opposite Party was Rs.4,04,031/- but the amount disbursed is only Rs.2,04,031/- but the Opposite Party is collecting interest for the entire sanctioned amount at exorbitant rate of interest at 12.5% per annum from the year 2014. The Counsel for Opposite Party rightly pointed out that after sanctioning of loan on 24.06.2014, there was a Moratorium Period of 2 years from 07.08.2014 to 07.07.2016, in which period EMI amount was not collected by the Opposite Party and thereafter post Moratorium the Opposite Party started collecting EMI  amount from the Complainant at Rs.6838/- from 07.08.2016 towards the disbursed amount of Rs.2,04,031/- at the agreed rate of interest of 12.75 % per annum as found in Ex.B-3. Further the contention of the Opposite Party that the balance loan amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was not  disbursed the next year as there was no request for disbursal from the Complainant pointing the terms of the Agreement  that the balance amount was to be paid at the request /demand made by the borrower is acceptable.

In view of the above discussions, we hold that the Opposite Party had acted as per terms and conditions of the Agreement entered between the Complainant and the Opposite Party and that the Opposite Party had not committed any deficiency of service on their part as alleged by the Complainant. In so for as the Opposite Party had charged interest for the loan disbursed at the agreed rate and not for the loan sanctioned as alleged by the Complainant. Accordingly Point No.1 is answered.

Point No.2:

As discussed and decided point No.1 against the Complainant, the Complainant is not entitled for any relief claimed in the Complaint and/or for any other relief/s. Accordingly, Point Nos. 2 and 3 are answered.

In the result the complaint is dismissed. No costs.

 

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on 28^th of September 2022.

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                 B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                        PRESIDENT

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:-

 

 

Ex.A1	27.06.2014	Educational Loan Sanctioned Letter
Ex.A2	13.03.2019	Lawyer Notice issued by the Complainant
Ex.A3	28.08.2019	Statement issued by the Opposite Party

 

 

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Opposite Party:-

 

Ex.B1	22.05.2014	Loan Application Form
Ex.B2	23.06.2014	Sanction Letter
Ex.B3	25.06.2014	Loan Agreement
Ex.B4	24.06.2014	Request Letter
Ex.B5	07.06.2022	Statement of Accounts

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                    B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                         PRESIDENT