Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

487/2009

M.N.Chelian - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC Bank Ltd., Managing Director & another - Opp.Party(s)

M/S.R.M.Chandrababu

14 Feb 2017

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing :   27.05.2009

                                                                        Date of Order :   14.02.2017

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

     2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU. S. PANDIAN, B.Sc., L.L.M.                       : PRESIDENT            

                  TMT. K.AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.,                                 : MEMBER I

            DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A ,D.Min.PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II          

C.C.NO.487/2009

TUESDAY THIS  14^TH  DAY OF FEBRUARY  2017

M.N. Chelian,

S/o. R. Mani,

No.160,  Pari Salai,

41/16, Everest Colony,

Mogappair East,

Chennai – 37.                                                     .. Complainant.                                                                                                                                                                                                                

                        ..Vs..

1.  HDFC Bank Ltd.,

Rep. by its Managing Director,

HDFC Bank House,

Senapati Bapat Marg,

Lower Parel,

Mumbai, Maharastra,

Pin 400 013. 

 

2. HDFC Bank Ltd.,

Rep.  by its Manager (Auto Loan),

Retail Assets Division,

IIIrd Flor, NO.56, G.N.Chetty Road,                   

Chennai-17.                                                   .. opposite parties.

Counsel for the Complainant           : M/s. R.M.Chandrababu   

Counsel for the opposite party        : M/s. Mohanraj Associates

 

ORDER

THIRU. S. PANDIAN, PRESIDENT

          This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking direction to  furnish 1) Closure letter 2) NOC / Form-35, and to pay as um of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation and to pay cost of the complaint.

1. The averment of the complaint are brief as follows:

     The complainant availed Auto Loan from the opposite party for purchase of TATA INDICA CAR bearing registration No.TN-08-AE0893 in the month of March 2008 for a sum of Rs.2,75,000/- to be repaid in equated monthly installment of Rs.9,325/- within a period of 36 months.   First installment for repayment of Loan commenced on 5.4.2008 and the last and final installment will be paid on 5.3.2011 towards both principle and interest amount.  The complainant’s loan account No. is 12935243 with the opposite party.   The complainant  repaid the installment regularly without any default.  In the meanwhile, in the month of March 2009, the complainant approached the 2^nd opposite party bank for pre-closure of the above said loan account and offered to pay the entire outstanding loan amount to the 2^nd opposite parties  on the basis of the said request of the complainant, the opposite party also issued an offer letter giving the terms and conditions for the pre-closure of loan account like pre payment charges @ 6% on outstanding principle amount and also interest till date of the pre payment amounting to Rs.11,621.37 and 1,459.51 respectively apart from the principle amount of Rs.1,93,689.49. 

2.     The complainant complied with 2^nd opposite party offer letter in toto and paid a total sum of Rs.2,06,770.37 towards full and final settlement of the above loan account and the 2^nd opposite party also issued a letter dated 23.3.2009 promising to sent 1) Closure letter 2) No objection certificate/Form 35 in respect of vehicle loan for release of hypothecation within 30 days of pre-payment of the loan amount.   But as promised by the 2^nd opposite party, the opposite party have not yet sent the closure letter the NOC and the other documents even though the 30 days period expired on 22.4.2009, which is in gross breach of 2^nd opposite parties promise and contract arrived at  between the complainant and 2^nd opposite party. 

3.     Though the complainant is not able to give the NOC to the subsequent buyer due to the 2^nd opposite party’s failure and neglected which amount to gross deficiency in service by the  opposite party bank.  The willful and wanton act on the part of the 2^nd opposite party in furnishing the closure letter and NOC, the complainant as well as the subsequent buyer of the vehicle have been put to irreparable loss and also great hardship. 

4.     The complainant issued a legal notice on 5.7.2009 to the 2^nd opposite party calling upon the 2^nd opposite party to comply his demand.   But the opposite party has failed  and neglected to release the above documents to the complainant even after the receipt of said notice.   Hence the complaint is filed.      

 

5. Written Version of  opposite parties are  in brief as follows:

    The opposite parties denies all the averments and allegations contained in the complaint except those that are specifically admitted herein.   The complaint as such is false, frivolous and vexatious and the same is liable to be dismissed in limine.    It is true that the complaint herein has availed vehicle loan and business loan facility from it.   The opposite party  at the time executing necessary loan documents regarding the business loan in favour of bank has created a lien over the vehicle set out in the complaint and lien has been marked over the vehicle with regard to the business loan facility availed by the complainant vide account No.14355963.  

6.     That since the complainant has created lien over his vehicle with regard to his business loan account he is not entitled for NOC and Form 35 as claimed by him.   It has withheld the NOC and Form 35 of his vehicle since there is still dues payable by the complainant towards by business loan account.  The complainant is not entitled for any relief claimed in the complaint since there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party as alleged in the complaint.   The opposite party as strictly acted in accordance with the loan agreement only executed by the complainant and as such the complaint is not at all maintainable in the eye of law and the same is liable to be dismissed in limine.   Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

7.    In order to prove the averments of the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 marked.  Proof affidavit of opposite party  filed and Ex.B1  & Ex.B2  marked on the side of the opposite parties

 

8.   At this juncture, the point for the consideration before this

        Forum is:  

 

1.  Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the 

     Opposite parties as alleged in the complaint?

 

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief as prayed for?

9. Point No.1:-

        On perusal of the averments of the complaint and the evidence  it is learnt that he had availed Auto loan from the 2^nd opposite party for purchase of TATA INDICA Car bearing Registration No.TN-08-AE-0893 for a sum of Rs.2,75,0000/- to be repaid in equated monthly installment of Rs.9,325/- within a period of 36 months and thereby the 1^st installment to repayment of loan commenced on 5.4.2008 and the last and final installment will be paid on 5.3.2011 towards both principle and interest amount.  It is further stated that the complainant first of all repaid the installment regularly without any default and in the meanwhile in the month of March 2009, the complainant approached the 2^nd opposite party bank for pre-closure and on his request the opposite party-2 to issue offer  letter Ex.A1 0given the terms and conditions to pay a total sum of Rs.2,06,770.37 along with  pre-payment charges @ 6% on outstanding principle amount and also interest till date of the pre-payment, the repayment schedule is marked as Ex.A3.  

10.    Furthermore, on perusal, it is noticed that as per Ex.A1 after on payment of the above said amount the opposite party-2 promised to send the closure  letter, No objection certificate  / Form 35 in respect of vehicle loan for release of hypothecation  within 30 days of pre-payment of the loan amount and  in turn on 23.3.2009, the complainant had paid the entire loan amount.   But as per the promise, the 2^nd opposite party has not complied to return the said document.   The account statement of the complainant by Kotak Mahindra Bank which is marked as Ex.A4, because of the non return of the above said document the complainant could not furnish the same to the subsequent buyer, which caused irreparable loss and hardship and the delivery note given by the subsequent buyer is marked as Ex.A2.   Therefore the complainant had issued a legal notice Ex.A5 to the opposite party and the same received by the opposite party the delivery  information is marked as Ex.A6.   Even there after the opposite party failed to release the above document and such the act of the opposite parties amounts for deficiency of service.

11.    On the other hand, through the evidence of the opposite party it is stated that when the complainant was  availed vehicle loan he has also availed business loan facility from opposite party-2.   The said business loan agreement Ex.B1 and the statement of account for the said loan Ex.B2.  It is further narrated that as on 25.2.2010 a sum of Rs.6,26,620/- is due towards the business  loan facility availed by the complainant and as per lien under Ex.B1 the complainant is not entitled for closure  letter, No objection certificate  / Form 35 since there is a charge over the vehicle by way of the said lien towards the business loan account and in such circumstances there is no deficiency in service on their part and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.  

 

12.    At this juncture, on careful perusal of the rival submissions raised before this forum on either side, it is admitted case that the complainant has availed Auto loan from the 2^nd opposite party for the purchase of TATA INDICA Car bearing registration No.TN-08-AE0893 for a sum of Rs.2,75,000/-.  The complainant’s account No. is 12935243  and the same has been pre-closed and the payment of Rs.2,06,770.37, as per the offer letter issued by the opposite party-2 which is marked as Ex.A1, and in this regard there is no dispute not at all.  Whereas, the contention raised by the opposite party is that the complainant is not entitled for return of documents since there is charge over the vehicle by way of lien towards the business loan account which also availed by the complainant and a sum of Rs.6,26,620.99 is due towards the said loan account.

13.    At the outset, whether the above said lien stated by the opposite party can bind the complainant and bar received the above said document is in question.   At this point of time it is pertinent to note that but at the request of the complainant the pre-closer of Auto loan for the purchase of the car, the opposite party issued an offer letter Ex.A1 by mentioning the total amount to be paid towards the pre closer of the said loan and also made clear with promise to return then closer letter, NOC/Form 35 etc to the complainant within 30 days  of pre payment of the said loan amount.    From the above Ex.A1, it is crystal clear that it has narrated by the complainant that the opposite party made a definite promise to return the above said documents, after fulfilled the above payment.  There is no dispute that the complainant has paid the said amount as quoted in Ex.A1.  

14.    At this juncture, this forum wants to enlighten that at the time of issuance of Ex.A1 offer letter, the opposite party would have definitely aware of the another business loan facility by the complainant and well aware of the contents of the lien in Ex.A1.  If it is so, the opposite party ought to have explained the condition of the lien found in Ex.A1 and  as per the lien till the completion of the dues of the business loan facility, the documents submitted in the Auto loan cannot be returned to the complainant.   But the opposite party has not done so.  Moreover  when the opposite party is well aware of the above facts, while the complainant made request for pre closure of the Auto loan, the opposite party would have neither decline the offer letter or atleast not to made any promise regarding the return of the documents pertaining to the concerned vehicle.   But per contra, the opposite party has categorically issued the offer letter by clearly mentioning the total amount for pre closer and made promise is very clear.

15.      In turn the complainant had paid the entire amount as per Ex.A1.  At this juncture, the opposite party failed to return the document for the reason stating that there is a lien and having charge over the vehicle by means of the said lien towards the business loan account is unwarranted.  Furthermore, the opposite party has no way stated either in written version or in his proof affidavit that the complainant is a default either in the auto loan or in the business loan facility and also no document filed to show about any defaulter in the repayment of the above said loan.   If it is so, the plea taken by the opposite party that  because there is a lien, the complainant is not entitled for return of the document is unsustainable and also  it cannot be accepted at any cost.

16.    From the foregoing among other facts and circumstances, it is crystal clear that the opposite party has failed to fulfill the promise made in Ex.A1 and not  come forward to return the document i.e. pre closer, NOC / Form 35 to the complainant within a stipulated time as prescribed  in Ex.A1 clearly amounts for deficiency of service which certainly caused mental agony and hardship and the same has to be compensated.  Thus the point No.1 is answered accordingly.

17.   POINT NO.2

        As per the  findings arrived in point No.1, due to the deficiency of service of the opposite parties the complainant could not able to return  the relevant documents pertaining to the transfer of vehicle to the subsequent purchaser and thereby the complainant certainly suffered much pain and hardship.  Therefore the complainant is entitled for return of the documents viz. 1) Closure letter, 2) NOC / Form-35 in respect of the vehicle TATA INDICA CAR bearing registration No.TN-08-AE0893 within six weeks to the complainant and complainant is also entitled for reasonable compensation with cost.   Thus the point No.2 is also answered accordingly.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed.  The opposite parties 1 & 2 are jointly and severally directed to return the 1) Closure letter, 2) NOC / Form-35 in respect of the vehicle TATA INDICA CAR bearing registration No.TN-08-AE0893 within six weeks to the complainant and also  to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) towards compensation for causing mental agony and hardship due to deficiency of service on the part of them  and also to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) towards cost to the complainant.

The above amounts shall be payable within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a till the date of payment.        

         Dictated by the President to the Assistant, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the  14^th  day  of  February  2017.

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.

Complainant’s side documents:

Ex.A1 -  23.3.2009         - Copy of letter given by the opposite party to the

                              complainant.

Ex.A2-         -       - Copy of Delivery Note.

Ex.A3- 28.3.2009  - Copy of Prepayment schedule given by the opposite party.

Ex.A4- 1.5.2009    - Copy of account statement.

Ex.A5- 7.5.2009    - Copy of legal notice.

Ex.A6-         -       - Copy of letter by the Postal Department to the 2^nd opposite

                              Party.

 

Opposite parties’ side document: -   

Ex.B1-         -       - Copy of loan agreement.

Ex.B2- 25.2.2010  - Copy of prepayment statement of accounts.

 

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                              PRESIDENT.