Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/102/2020

R.Rojar Kumar Naidu - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC Bank limited - Opp.Party(s)

R.Selvakumar, M.Jaisingh, A.Vijayakumar

18 May 2023

ORDER

                                                        Date of ComplaintFiled:01.10.2020

                                                        Date of Reservation    :08.05.2023

                                                        Date of Order             :18.05.2023

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.102/2020

THURSDAY,THE18^th DAY OF MAY 2023

Mr.R. Rojer Kumar Naidu
S/o. L.G.E. Rajkumar,
No. 421,Kambar Street,
Metha Nagar Ground Floor,
Methanagar Ground Near,
Chennai-29.                                                             .. Complainant.

                                                -Vs-

1. HDFC BANK LTD,

    Rep. by the Branch Manager,

    110, Nelson Manikam Road,
    Aminjikarai,

    Chennai.

 

2. Mrs.Pooja,

    Loan Executive,
    HDFC Bank Ltd.,

    110, Nelson Manikam Road,
    Aminjikarai,
    Chennai.

 

3. HDFC BANK REGIONAL,

    Rep. by Regional Manager,

    No.96, Prince Kushal Tower,
    Ground Floor, Anna salai,

    Mount Road, (Near LIC building),

    Chennai- 600 002.

 

4. HDFC BANK HOUSE,

    Rep. by Head Manager,

    Senapati, Bapat Marg,
    Lower Parel (w),
    Mumbai-400 013.                                            .. Opposite Parties. 

 

                                              * * * * * * *

 

 

 

Counsel for the Complainant                : M/s. R.Selvakumar, M.Jaisingh,

                                                            A.Vijayakumar

 

Counsel for Opposite Parties 1,2,3 & 4  :  Mr.T.K.M.Sai Krishnan,

                                                            Mrs. N. Premlatha        

 

        On perusal of records and upon hearing the oral arguments of the Counsel for Complainant and the Counsel for the Opposite Parties this Commission delivered the following:

ORDER

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

 

(i)  The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Parties under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and prays to direct the Opposite Parties 1 to 4  to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards  compensation for their unfair trade practices  to the complaint.

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

1.     The Complainant submitted that he is working as Assistant Manager in Sutherland Global Services Ltd. On 05.01.2020 he has taken personal loan 10,00,000 /-from ICICI bank for his personal use on tenure of 67 months with 11.5% interest as month EMI is 21,996/-. Since he took the loan he has paid 5 month EMI'S as per EMI Schedule. (ICICI Loan Account number: LPCHE00041082769).

2.     The Complainant submitted that since 23.03.2020 onwards government announced lockdown his company asked him to work from home so he worked from home, then he got call from 2nd Opposite Party (HDFC- Pooja-mobile)No. 944581 0861)on 22.05.2020, she offered Personal loan Balance transfer of HDFC, with better interest of 10.5%.TheHDFC executive also promised Complainant that ICICI loan will be closed by HDFC through a Demand draft and 3 Lakhs amount will be credited to Complainant's account as a top up.

3.     The Complainant submitted that he accepted above said proposal thereafter on 25.05.2020, 2^nd Opposite Party’s person had been to Complainant house for Signature then that person explained about the HDFC balance transfer personal loan,2^nd Opposite Party's person himself informed hat ICICI pre-closure amount is Rs.9,80,000/- and promised that on this balance transfer personal loan of HDFC, Demand Draft will be offered to ICICI personal loan closure and will be credited to Complainant account. They told that and got signature for loan process.

4. The Complainant submitted  that on 03.09.2020 the amount of  Rs.2,30,513/- was credited to his account instead of 3 Lakhs by the 1^stOpposite Party, there after Complainant called 1^st and 2^ndOpposite Party(Pooja )they informed Complainant over phone that Demand Draft to closure amount of ICICI loan (LPCHEO041082769) will be sent to Complainant by courier.

5. The Complainant submitted that on 05.09.2020 he received Demand Draft of ICICI personal loan closure amount through Courier thereafter Complainant has been to Adyar ICICI Branch with the Demand Draft (LPCHE0041082769 ROJER KUMAR NAIDU) but they refused to accept the Demand Draft for closure because Demand draft amount is less than actual Closure amount.

6.  The Complainant submitted he called up the  2^nd opposite  party but he did not attend the call, so Complainant had been to HDFC Branch Nelson Manickam Road (1st Opposite Party) there 2^nd Opposite Party is not available, one of staff Mrs.Nithya attended Complainant and provided mail id Loansupport@hdfcbank. com, then advised to send the mail with details for sorting out the issue without delay. The HDFC executive Nithya also told this despite of Complainant cannot utilize the DD because of discrepancy on the amount, he is still liable to pay the EMI.

7.     The Complainant submitted that he has sent mail with details to given mail id. On 19.7.2020 Complainant received mail that  HDFC Bank (1^st Opposite Party) agreed to cancel the loan but processing fee, stamp duty charges will be applicable.

8.     The Complainant submitted that he would have continued with ICICI loan but 2^nd Opposite Party lured Complainant with false promises now Complainant ended up with paying EMI to both loans.

9.     The Complainant submitted that 1,2,3 and 4 Opposite Parties engaged in unfair trade practices and lured customers with fake promise causing mental agony to Complainant. Hence the Complaint.

II. Written  version of  1^st ,2^nd ,3^rd  & 4^thOpposite Parties in brief is as follows:

10.    The Opposite Parties submitted that the Complainant had approached the said Opposite Parties bank to avail personal loan facility vide loan application Form dated 20.08.2020 and provided sufficient documents to process the same. Based on the income and repayment capacity of the Complainant and banking norms, the Complainant was offered a loan facility of Rs.11,25,000/-. Moreover the Complainant had agreed to repay the loan facility by expressly executing the loan agreement dated 02.09.2020 along with contractual rate of interest and other overdue charges on account of default on the schedule date of payment. In such event, the Complainant is now liable to pay a sum of Rs.2,75,316.86/- as on 31.03.2021 in the said loan facility.

11.    The Opposite Parties submitted that the Complainant had expressly executed a letter addressing to Opposite Parties, Chennai for balance transfer to ICICI Bank. Hence the Complainant was well aware of the fact that, the balance transfer to ICICI bank is only Rs.8,88,453/- out of the loan facility of Rs.11,25,000/- for which a loan agreement has been expressly executed by the Complainant. After deducting necessary fees of Rs.6034/- towards processing the loan facility, an amount of Rs.2,30,513/- was transferred to the Complainant's bank account as instructed by him. In such event the Complainant cannot make baseless allegations against the said Opposite Parties that, less amount was given as Demand Draft to pay the debts of lCICI Bank. Therefore it is  abundantly clear that, the Complainant had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt by filing appropriate documents before this Hon'ble Commission that, the said Opposite Parties have committed deficiency of service. Further the Complainant is trying to create concocted stories to mislead the Hon'ble Commission for his illegal gains.

12.    The Complainant himself had executed balance transfer letter addressing to the Opposite Parties bank authorizing the Opposite Parties bank to disburse a sum of Rs.8,88,453/- to close the Complainant's personal loan which was existing with ICICI bank. In such event, the Opposite Parties bank cannot be made responsible, if IClCI Bank had refused the demand draft issued by the Opposite Parties’ bank for
closure of the personal loan account.

13.    The Complainant expressly executed the "Format for
Customer declaration in loan takeover programme' dated 02.09.2020 wherein in clause 7, it is clearly mentioned that, in the event of cancellation/rescheduling of loan owing to non-utilization in full or any part thereof, the Complainant had agreed to pay the interest on un-utilized part of the loan till such period as scheduled or cancelled. Further the Complainant agreed not to claim the processing fees and stamp duty already recovered from the Complainant by the Opposite Parties bank 1, 3 and 4 at the time of disbursement of the loan. In such circumstances the Complainant cannot retract from the contractual obligations with
the Opposite Parties bank 1, 3 and 4.

14.    The legal notice dated 22.09.2020 addressed to the Opposite Parties bank was appropriately replied by the counsel of the Opposite Parties bank by the notice dated 30.10.2020.

15.    Under Section 39 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, 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 arbitrary and also it has to be established whether the loss alleged was direct result of negligence or whether it is remote. Therefore prayed to dismiss the complaint.

III.    The Complainant has filed his proof affidavit and Written Arguments, in support of his claim in the complaint and has filed documents which are marked as Ex.A1 to A-6. The Opposite Parties had submitted their proof affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of Opposite Parties documents were marked as Ex.B1 to B-6.

Points for Consideration:-

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

2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for?

3. To what other relief, the Complainant is entitled to?

POINT NO. 1 :-

16.    The contention of the Complainant is that he had taken personal loan for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- from ICICI Bank with interest at the rate of 11.5.%. During lock down on 22.5.2020, the 2^nd Opposite Party had offered personal loan with better interest of 10.5%. As the 2^nd Opposite Party promised that ICICI loan will be closed by HDFC Bank and a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- will be credited to the Complainant’s account as the top up loan the Complainant accepted the proposal. However on 03.09.2020 a sum of Rs.2,30,530/- was credited to the account of the Complainant  instead of Rs.3,00,000/- by 1^st Opposite Party and on 05.09.2020 he had received Demand Draft for closure of personal loan availed from ICICI Bank which the ICICI bank refused to accept the amount because the amount in the demand draft is less than the actual foreclosure amount.  When the Complainant contacted the Opposite Parties they agreed to sort out the issue. On 19.07.2020, the Complainant had received mail from the 1^st Opposite Party agreeing to cancel the loan with applicable charges. The Complainant further submitted that he would have continued the loan with the ICICI Bank but for the false promises made by the Opposite Party which ended up in paying EMI to both the loans. 

17.    The Opposite Party contended that the Complainant had approached them for availing personal loan facility. The Complainant was offered the loan facility for a sum of Rs.11,25,000/- which the Complainant agreed to repay expressly executing the loan agreement dated 02.09.2020 along with contractual rate of interest and other over dues charges on account of the default on the schedule date of payment. The Opposite Party had given Demand Draft for a sum of Rs.8,88,453/- to pay the debt of ICICI Bank, out of the loan facility of Rs.11,25,000/- after deducting necessary fees of Rs.6,034/- towards processing the loan facility and the sum of Rs.2,30,530/- was transferred to the Complainant’s bank account as instructed by him. The Opposite Parties had submitted that the Complainant himself had executed balance transfer letter addressing the Opposite Parties authorizing the Opposite Parties’ bank to disburse a sum of Rs.8,88,453/- to close the Complainant’s personal loan which was existing with ICICI Bank. In such event, the Opposite Parties cannot be responsible if ICICI Bank had refused the demand draft issued by the Opposite Party for closure of the personal loan account. The legal notice dated 22.09.2020 addressed to the Opposite Parties was appropriately replied by the Opposite Party vide notice dated 30.10.2020. Further submitted that the Complainant was liable to pay a sum of Rs.3,41,278.02 as on 01.08.2022 towards the loan account No.112480256.

18. A perusal of Ex.A1 would show that the Opposite Party had sanctioned a sum of Rs.11,25,000/- to the Complainant on 02.09.2020, after deduction of Rs.4739/- a sum of Rs.8,88,453/- was for the payment to the ICICI Bank by way of Manager’s cheque and a sum of Rs.2,30,513/- was transferred to the Account of the Complainant by RTGS. According to the Complainant the Opposite Parties instead of taking Demand Draft for Rs.9,79,362/- which amount is required to preclose the existing loan with ICICI Bank the Opposite Party bank by Ex.A2, dated 03.09.2020 had issued Demand Draft for Rs.8,88,453/- which according to the Complainant will not satisfy the outstanding loan with the ICICI Bank. In this regard, the Complainant had sent an email dated 08.09.2020, Ex.A4 to the Opposite Parties stating that when he had been to ICICI bank to close the loan by handing over the demand draft the ICICI Bank he was told that he had to pay a sum of Rs.9,79,362/- to close the existing loan account and refused to receive the demand draft for a sum of Rs.8,88,453/-.

19. As per Ex.B1, which is the loan application form dated 20.08.2020, the Complainant had sought for a loan of Rs.13,00,000/- however as per Ex.B2, which is the loan agreement dated 02.09.2020, bearing Document No.112480256, the Opposite Party had sanctioned a sum of Rs.11,25,000/- to the Complainant with interest at the rate of 10.50% per annum. The Complainant had also authorised the Opposite Party bank to disburse his personal loan in order to close his existing loan with ICICI Bank  and the amount of closure is mentioned as Rs.8,88,553/- as seen in Ex.B3. The legal notice issued by the Complainant on 17.09.2020, Ex.A5 seeking compensation from the Opposite Parties was received and suitably replied by the Opposite Party on 30.10.2020, vide Ex.B5.

20.  On discussion made above, and on perusal of records, it is seen that the Opposite Parties have sanctioned loan for a sum of Rs.11,25,000/- to the Complainant, out of the loan facility demand draft for a sum of Rs.8,88,453/- was issued by the Opposite Party bank to foreclose the loan availed by the Complainant from the ICICI Bank and a sum of Rs.2,30,530/- was transferred to the Complainant’s bank account.  The contention of the Complainant is  that instead of Rs.9,79,352/- only a sum of Rs.8,88,453/- was issued by way of Demand Draft by the Opposite Party to foreclose the personal loan facility of ICICI Bank and hence he was not able to close the loan account availed from ICICI Bank which is due to the deficient act of the Opposite Parties cannot be accepted in view of the fact that Ex.B1 to B4, would show that the Complainant had agreed and authorized to disburse only a sum of Rs.8,88,453/- to close his existing loan. Moreover the Complainant had accepted the balance loan amount of Rs.2,30,513/- transferred to the account of the Complainant by RTGS and had spent the amount as admitted in his e mail dated 08.09.2020. The Complainant has not substantiated his claim that the Opposite Parties had improperly processed the loan facility and failed to process the actual agreed amount of Rs.9,79,362/- to foreclose the loan account of ICICI Bank and to transfer a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- to his account. As the Opposite Parties have acted as per the terms and conditions of the agreement agreed upon by both the parties, by transferring loan amount of Rs.2,30,513/- to the account of the Complainant and issued a Demand Draft for Rs.8,88,453/- though the Demand Draft was not encashed as the same was insufficient to close his existing loan, for which the Opposite Parties would not be held responsible. Hence this Commission is of the considered view that the Complainant had failed to prove his case that the Opposite Parties have committed deficiency in service. Accordingly Point No.1 is answered against the Complainant.

POINT NO: 2 & 3

21.    As discussed and decided in Point No.1 that the Opposite Parties have not committed any deficiency in service, the Complainant is not entitled for the reliefs claimed in the complaint or for any other relief(s) from the Opposite Parties. Accordingly Point Nos.2 and 3 are answered.

 

In the  result, this complaint is dismissed.  No costs.

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on 18^th May 2023.

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN             T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                   B.JIJAA

      MEMBER II                         MEMBER I                        PRESIDENT

 

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

Ex.A1	02.09.2020	Xerox copy of the HDFC Personal loan application.
Ex.A2	03.09.2020	Xerox copy of the Demand Draft with acknowledgement.
Ex.A3	07.09.2020	Xerox copy of ICICI Bank repayment schedule.
Ex.A4	08.09.2020	Xerox copy of mail communication.
Ex.A5	22.09.2020	Xerox copy of the  legal notice with postal receipts.
Ex.A6		Xerox copy of the Death certificate of Mrs. Deepika W/o.Rojerkumar Naidu herein the Complainant.

 

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

Ex.B1	20.08.2020	Xerox copy of  loan application form
Ex.B2		Xerox copy of  loan Agreement.
Ex.B3	02.09.2020	Xerox copy of  Balance transfer letter.
Ex.B4	02.09.2020	Xerox copy of  format for customer declaration in loan take over letter.
Ex.B5	30.10.2020	Xerox copy of reply letter
Ex.B6	01.08.2022	Xerox copy of statement of account details of the Complainant.

 

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN             T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                   B.JIJAA

      MEMBER II                             MEMBER I                        PRESIDENT