Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.

                                                                        Complaint No. : 221.

                                                                        Instituted on     : 08.05.2015.

                                                                        Decided on       : 15.07.2016.

Dr. Pardeep Singh Gahlot s/o Sh.Rajeshwar Singh R/o 9J-11 Medical Enclave, Rothak.

                                                                        ………..Complainant.

                                    Vs.

HDFC Bank Ltd., Model Town, Rohtak through its Manager.

                                                                  ……….Opposite party.

            COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.

BEFORE:      SH.JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT.

                        SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.

Present:          Sh.S.S.Badhwar, Advocate for the complainant.

                        Sh.Rajesh Sharma Advocate for the opposite party.

                                                ORDER

SH. JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT :

1.                                 The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that he alongwith his wife is having a saving bank account no.01761000149240 with the opposite party which was opened at Zero Balance account Scheme. It is averred that after few days of opening of the bank account the official of opposite party withdraw an amount of Rs.5000/- from the account of complainant for preparing FD to complete their target. They have renewed the same from time to time for next three years. But when the complainant  enquired about the renewal of FDR, he was told that FDR amount has been adjusted as penalty for non maintenance of account. Till date the bank has imposed penalty of Rs.10000/- in parts on different dates and on objection, opposite party refunded Rs.3400/- in two installments to the complainant.  It is averred that the opposite party sanctioned a personal loan of Rs.600000/- to the complainant and transferred the amount of Rs.584000/- in the saving account of SBI Medical College Branch, Rohtak and illegally deducted Rs.15000/- as processing fee etc. whereas no such fee was agreed between the parties. It is averred that the complainant regularly paid the EMI of the said loan to the bank through post dated cheques given to the bank. It is averred that in March 2014 the complainant visited the bank to pay an amount of Rs.85000/- as part   pre-payment, the bank officials refused to accept the said amount and advised to deposit the amount in saving account of HDFC Bank. The complainant deposited the said amount in his HDFC Bank but was shocked to know that the opposite party has illegally deducted an amount of Rs.4400/- as penalty for non-maintaining the account. It is averred that thereafter the complainant started to pay EMI directly to the loan account  but  lateron the complainant was shocked to know that the deposited and encahsed cheques have been shown bounced and another penalty of Rs.618/- per bounced cheque has been illegally imposed upon the complainant. Whereas the said cheques were already enchased through bank, so no question of bouncing of the same arises. It is averred that complainant requested the opposite party to restore the illegal amount deducted from his account and to release the FDR             amount in his favour but any heed was not paid to his requests. It is averred that the act of opposite party is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. As such it is prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed to restore the illegal amount deducted from the account of complainant on account of non maintaining the account and on account of bouncing of cheques and to release the maturity amount of FDR and also to pay compensation on account of mental agony and harassment to the complainant. It is also prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed to receive the loan amount in lumpsum from the complainant.

2.                                 On notice, the opposite party appeared and filed its written statement submitting therein that it is denied that the account was opened at Zero Balance.  It is denied that the amount of Rs.5000/- was withdrawn by the bank to complete the target. The complainant himself has filled a FDR Form.  It is denied that an amount of Rs.15000/- was deducted illegally as the same was charged as processing fee at the time of grant of loan with the consent of the complainant. It is averred that the amount of Rs.4400/- has been deducted as per rules, norms and regulations. It is averred that the complainant failed to maintain the sufficient balance regularly and his installments were got bounced due to irregular maintenance of the sufficient balance in his saving account. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied. Opposite  party prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

3.                                 Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.

4.                                 Complainant in his evidence tendered his affidavit Ex.PW1/A, documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P15 and has closed his evidence. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the opposite party has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R11 and closed his evidence.

5.                                 We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.

6.                                 In the present case it is not disputed that the complainant had taken loan from the opposite party and the grievance of the complainant is that the opposite party has charged illegal charges on account of non maintaining the account, cheque bouncing charges etc.  In this regard we have perused the statement of account Ex.R11, whereby an amount of Rs.13195.29/- has been shown as overdue payment. We have also perused the letter issued by the opposite party annexed with Ex.R11, whereby as per the calculation given, the Principal outstanding amount is Nil, Rs.1013/- has been shown as late payment penalty charges and Rs.12186/- on account of cheque bouncing charges and Rs.253/- as pending instalments .

7.                                 After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that the complainant had availed the loan in the month of 3/2013 and at the time of availing loan, complainant had deposited the post dated  cheques to the bank on account of EMI of the loan amount. But the opposite party has charged the cheque bouncing charges whereas the said cheques have been encashed.

8.                                 In view of the facts and circumstances of the case it is observed that all the loan amount has been paid by the complainant. As such it is directed that the opposite party shall waive off the amount of Rs.13195/- as shown in statement of account Ex.R11 and to issue No Dues Certificate to the complainant. There is no order as to costs. Complaint is disposed of accordingly.

9.                                Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.          File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

15.07.2016.

                                                                        ................................................

                                                                        Joginder Kumar Jakhar, President

                                                                        ………………………………….

                                                                        Ved Pal, Member.