STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
U.T., CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. | : | 294 of 2013 |
Date of Institution | : | 15.07.2013 |
Date of Decision | : | 06.08.2013 |
Mr. Jahaan Singh Dhaliwal s/o Mr. Jagmeet Singh Dhaliwal, R/o Flat No.1558, Unit A-1, Fifth Floor, Silver City Heights, Silver City, Zirakpur 140603, Distt. Mohali, Punjab.
…..Appellant/Complainant
VERSUS
1] HDFC Bank Limited, through its Manager, having its Office at Retail Asset Operations, Retail Asset Division, HDFC Bank, Bank House Building, Ground Floor, Plot No.28, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh 160002
2] HDFC Bank Limited, through its Chairman cum Managing Director, having its Office at HDFC Bank House, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai 400013 and Branch Office at Sector 9, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.
3] HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Limited, having its Main Office at 6th Floor, Leela Business Park, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri, Mumbai and Branch Office at SCO No.124-125, Ist Floor, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.
……Respondents/Opposite Parties.
Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT.
SH. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.
Argued by:Sh. Jahaan Singh Dhaliwal (Advocate), appellant in person.
PER DEV RAJ, MEMBER.
This appeal is preferred, by the complainant (now appellant), against the order dated 11.06.2013 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), passed in Consumer Complaint No.337 of 2012 vide which, it accepted the complaint of the complainant, against Opposite Parties No.1and 2 only and directed them, as under: -
“11] In view of the foregoings, we are of the opinion that the complaint must succeed. The same is accordingly allowed against OPs NO.1 & 2. The OPs NO.1 & 2 are directed to refund the amount of Rs.26,181/- to the complainant. The OPs NO.1 & 2 are also directed to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for causing mental & physical harassment to the complainant, apart from paying litigation cost of Rs.5000/-.
This order be complied with by the OPs No.1 & 2 within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which they shall be liable to pay the above awarded amount of Rs.36,181/- (Rs.26,181/- plus Rs.10,000/-) along with interest @12% p.a. from the date of filing this complaint i.e. 01.06.2012 till its actual payment, besides paying litigation cost as aforesaid”.
However, the complaint qua Opposite Party No.3, was dismissed by the District Forum.
2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant was having a Savings Account bearing No.13061000209299 with Opposite Party No.2 HDFC Bank. It was stated that the complainant had taken an auto loan of Rs.7.00 lacs from Opposite Party No.1, Retail Asset Division of Opposite Party No.2, in May, 2011, for a period of three years, for the purchase of Volkswagen Vento Car. It was further stated that the said loan amount was to be repaid to Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, in 36 equal monthly installments of Rs.22,790/- each. It was further stated that the complainant had paid the said installments timely without default. It was further stated that the complainant also got the said vehicle comprehensively insured from Opposite Party No.3, by paying a sum of Rs.25,000/-, as premium.
3. It was further stated that, unfortunately, the vehicle of the complainant, met with an accident at Ludhiana in the first week of September 2011 and an insurance claim was lodged with Opposite Party No.3. It was further stated that as the vehicle, in question, suffered major accidental loss, the same was declared as a total loss, which was later on approved by the Surveyor appointed by Opposite Party No.3. It was further stated that the complainant received a total sum of Rs.7,24,000/-. It was further stated that since the vehicle was hypothecated with Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, the complainant received two Demand Drafts of HDFC Bank bearing No.093772 dated 28.11.2011 and 123511 dated 7.12.2011, from Opposite Party No.3, for Rs.3,30,000/-and Rs.3,74,000/- respectively, both drawn in favour of HDFC Bank Ltd.(Loan Account No.18462567). It was further stated that the remaining amount of Rs.20,000/- was to be handed over by Opposite Party No.3, to the complainant on receipt of No Objection Certificate issued by Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 on clearing the loan amount by him. It was further stated that Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, informed the complainant that as he would be foreclosing the loan account, so he would have to pay fore-closure charges at the rate to be decided by the Bank. It was further stated that the complainant sent an email dated 8.12.2011 (Annexure C-1) to one Vishesh Bahukundi, representative of Opposite Party No.1, vide which, he was requested to waive of the foreclosure charges, on account of compulsory foreclosure of the loan amount, which was being done not at the instance of the complainant, but due to payment of the insurance claim amount, directly by Opposite Party No.3 to Opposite Parties No.1 and 2. It was further stated that the complainant did not receive any written reply to his email (Annexure C-1) but Sh. Vishesh Bahukundi, representative of Opposite Party No.1, telephonically kept on assuring that the loan account of the complainant shall be closed without charging any prepayment/foreclosure charges. It was further stated that on getting no response from Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, the complainant submitted representation dated 4.1.2012 (Annexure C-2), to Opposite Party No.1 to foreclose the loan account, and deposited the said two demand drafts and requested not to deduct any foreclosure/prepayment charges. It was further stated that on getting no response from Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 till 16.1.2012, the complainant approached their Chandigarh Office on 16.1.2012 and requested it, to close the loan account, and credit the demand drafts tendered by him on 4.1.2012. It was further stated that on 16.1.2012, the complainant was shocked to receive a calculation note (Annexure C-4) from Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, vide which a demand of total amount of Rs.5,70,261/- was raised, against the complainant, towards closure of the loan in question. It was further stated that, in the said calculation note, the complainant was also required to deposit the prepayment charges calculated @5% on the outstanding principal amount. It was further stated that the complainant was again requested by the representative, to wait for another week and promised that, in the meanwhile, the approval shall be got from the officials of the Bank to waive of the said prepayment charges. It was further stated that the complainant waited till 31.1.2012 and, on getting no response, he, ultimately tendered the demand drafts with covering letter on 01.02.2012 with a request to close his loan account, but even then Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, debited Rs.22,790/- towards installment from the saving account of the complainant with Opposite Party No.2. It was further stated that finally, the complainant made the payment of total outstanding loan amount of Rs.5,72,754.04, which also included the prepayment charges of Rs.26,181.11. It was further stated that the matter regarding the deduction of foreclosure charges of Rs.26,181/- was agitated by the complainant, but to no avail. It was further stated that the complainant also agitated before Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, about their two months delay, in crediting the amount of the demand draft, but to no effect. It was further stated that Opposite Party No.3 had wrongly calculated the depreciation of the parts @15% p.a. of the insured amount, even though the insured vehicle was only three months old and paid only Rs.7,24,000/-. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, and indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the C. P. Act only), for directing the Opposite Parties to pay Rs.26,181.11 deducted as prepayment/foreclosure charges alongwith interest @12% per annum; Rs.1 Lac as compensation for harassment and mental agony; Rs.25,000/- as punitive damages and Rs.25,,000/- as cost of litigation, was filed.
4. Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, in their written version, admitted that the complainant was having Savings Account No.13061000209299 with them and he had also taken an auto loan of Rs.7.00 lacs from Opposite Party No.1whcih was to be repaid in 36 equal monthly installments of Rs.22,790/- each. The factum of receipt of demand drafts of Rs.3,30,000/- and Rs.3,74,000/- respectively from Opposite Party No.3 (Insurance Company) against the loan account of the complainant was also admitted by Opposite Parties No.1 and 2. It was stated that the complainant requested the Opposite Party Bank to credit the demand drafts in the loan account and accordingly, Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 complied with the instructions. It was further stated that the amount of Rs.7,04,000/-was received by the Opposite Party Bank on 11.2.2012 vide demand draft No.123511 and a refund of Rs.1,54,033/- was given to the complainant. It was further stated that as per the calculation sheet, the interest was charged in the account upto the date of calculation sheet. The interest was charged, in the account, upto the date of pre-payment, as is evident from Annexure C-6.It was further stated that pre-payment charges were to be paid by the complainant as per the Bank rules. It was further stated that the although the demand drafts were handed over by the complainant to the Bank, yet he did not instruct it to present the same for collection of payment and it was only when he asked the Bank to tender the demand drafts for collection that the same were presented in the clearing for collection of payment. It was further stated that as per the rules of the bank, the fore-closure/pre-payment charges were payable on account of pre-payment of the entire loan amount. It was further stated that the request had been received from the complainant for waiver of the fore-closure/pre-payment, but the same could not be waived of, which fact was informed to him. It was further stated that there was neither any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, nor did they indulge into unfair trade practice. The remaining, averments made in the complaint, were denied.
5. Opposite Party No.3, in its written version, admitted that the vehicle of the complainant was insured with it. It was also admitted that the said vehicle met with an accident, and got damaged. It was stated that Opposite Party No.3, processed the claim of the complainant, as per Rules, and sent the demand draft to him. It was further stated that there was neither any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Party No.3, nor did it indulge into unfair trade practice. The remaining, averments made in the complaint, were denied.
6. The parties led evidence, in support of their case.
7. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, accepted the complaint, against Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 only, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the instant order.
8. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/complainant, for enhancement of compensation, on the ground, that the same was meagre.
9. We have heard Sh. Jahaan Singh Dhaliwal (Advocate), appellant, in person, at the preliminary stage, and, have carefully perused the record of the District Forum.
10. The appellant/complainant submitted that the loss suffered by him due to delay, in deposit of demand drafts, by the respondent Bank, into his account, was not compensated. It was further submitted that the appellant sent email dated 8.12.2011 (Annexure C-1) requesting to waive of the foreclosure charges. It was further submitted that he deposited the demand drafts with the respondent Bank with a letter dated 4.1.2012 (Annexure C-2). The respondent Bank in Para 11 of the written statement admitted that demand drafts were deposited by the appellant, and alongwith the same, a representation was also received by the respondent Bank on 4.1.2012. It was further submitted that the respondent Bank informed the appellant on 16.1.2012, that it shall deduct foreclosure charges @5% on the principal outstanding amount (Annexure C-4). It was further submitted that after inquiring about the status of demand drafts, he (appellant/complainant), on 1.02.2012 lodged a complaint (Annexure C-5) that demand drafts tendered and deposited on 4.1.2012, had not been credited to his loan account. It was further submitted that the respondent Bank presented a calculation sheet (Annexure C-6) showing a principal outstanding of Rs.5,23,622/-, interest of Rs.163/- and foreclosure charges of Rs.26,181/-. It was further submitted that the Bank sat on the demand drafts for reasons best known to it despite specific instructions from the appellant to deposit the same. It was further submitted that as a result of this delay, the appellant, in addition to mental torture and physical harassment, also suffered monetary loss, i.e. loss of interest of at least Rs.21,000/- on the amount of Rs.7,04,000/- for a period of three months from 8.12.2011 till 6.02.2012 i.e. till the date the said amount was not credited and deposited into the loan account of the appellant and interest amount of at least Rs.15,000/- accumulated on the principal outstanding in the loan account as a result of delay in closure of the loan account for a period of three months from 8.12.2011 till 06.02.2012. It was further submitted that the District Forum committed a patent error, in law, by not taking into account the evidence, on record and by not awarding adequate amount as compensation and damages for the loss and injury, suffered by the appellant. It was further submitted that Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 were, thus, deficient, in rendering service.
11. The core question, which falls for consideration, is as to whether, there was delay of three months in crediting demand drafts on the part of respondent Bank? It is evident from the averments, in the complaint, that the appellant/complainant did not present the demand drafts to the respondent Bank, for credit, in his loan account, immediately, on their receipt. Before doing so, he wanted confirmation from the Bank that there would be no foreclosure charges. As per Annexure C-2, the appellant deposited two demand drafts for Rs.3,30,000/- and Rs.3,74,000/- totaling Rs.7,04,000/- alongwith his letter dated 4.1.2012 making a request for foreclosing his loan account. It was mentioned in the letter aforesaid:-
“I hope that there would not be any foreclosure charges on the said foreclosure resulting out of unforeseen circumstances and due to no fault of mine”.
Apparently, by writing this letter, the appellant imposed a condition upon the Bank. As per the averments, made in the complaint, as well as appeal, the matter remained under consideration/deliberation, between the appellant, and Opposite Party No.1. The demand drafts were dated 28.11.2011 and 7.12.2011 respectively. The same according to the appellant, for the first time, were deposited on 4.1.2012 through a letter instead of adopting the banking norm of depositing the same (demand drafts) through a prescribed format. As per averment of the appellant, in para 6.(A)(iv) of his appeal, on receiving information, from the respondent Bank, the appellant had requested it to deposit and credit the same (demand drafts) on 16.01.2012. As per Annexure C-5 (colly) (Page 45 of District Forum file), which is a letter dated 31.01.2012 from the appellant/complainant, to the respondent Bank, that he was informed about the outstanding amount payable. At page 46 of the District Forum file, there is another letter dated 1.2.2012, whereby the appellant/complainant submitted the same two bank drafts, to the respondent Bank. Thus, it is clear that the matter remained under consideration/deliberation, between the appellant, and the respondent Bank on the question of foreclosure charges and when the demand drafts were finally submitted to the Bank on 01.02.2012, the same were credited to his loan account. There is endorsement by the appellant on Annexure C-6, to the effect that “The prepayment charges are being paid in protest and not accepted Encl: Letter dated Ist Feb”.
12. Thus, firstly, the delay in affording credit of the demand drafts, is not of three months, as contended by the appellant/complainant. The appellant/complainant has wrongly computed the period of delay from 6.12.2011 to 4.2.2012 as three months whereas it is only two months. Secondly, the appellant himself did not take action to deposit the demand drafts for about a month, and, in fact, finally the demand drafts were deposited by the appellant on 01.02.2012. Thirdly, the delay was on account of asking for payment of foreclosure charges by the respondent Bank, to which the appellant/complainant was not agreeable.
13. The grievance or else protest of the appellant/complainant, as per evidence, on record, of the District Forum file, was only with regard to payment of foreclosure charges. The appellant/complainant, in his complaint, did not seek the following relief which he has now sought in the appeal:
“Principal amount of Rs.15,000/- alongwith interest @12% p.a. from the date of the said amount became due till date of payment on the principal outstanding in the loan account as a result of delay in closure of the loan account for a period of three months from 8.12.11 till 6.2.12.”
14. The District Forum while allowing the complaint directed the respondents/Opposite Party No.1 & 2, to refund the amount of Rs.26,181/- charged by the respondent Bank on account of prepayment/ foreclosure charges, besides awarding Rs.10,000/- and Rs.5,000/- on account of compensation for causing mental and physical harassment and cost of litigation respectively.
15. In view of the above discussion, it is held that no deficiency is attributable to the respondent Bank in crediting the demand drafts and when there was no deficiency, the appellant/complainant was not entitled to any relief. Further, the relief reproduced in Para 13, as sought for by the appellant, in Para 7(b) of his appeal, is beyond the scope of his complaint. Thus, the order passed by the District Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.
16. No other point, was urged, by the appellant/complainant
17. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal filed by the appellant/complainant, is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no orders as to costs. The impugned order, passed by the District Forum, is upheld.
18. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
19. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.
Pronounced.
6th August, 2013.
Sd/-
[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
[DEV RAJ]
MEMBER
Ad
STATE COMMISSION
(First Appeal No.294 of 2013)
Argued by:Sh. Jahaan Singh Dhaliwal, Advocate – appellant in person.
Dated the 6th day of August, 2013.
ORDER
Vide our detailed order of the even date, recorded separately, this appeal filed by the appellant/complainant, has been dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs.
(DEV RAJ) MEMBER | (JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)) PRESIDENT |
Ad
