Punjab

Sangrur

CC/127/2016

kartar Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC Bank Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Ajay Pal Singh

16 Sep 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                        

                                                Complaint No.  127

                                                Instituted on:    12.01.2016

                                                Decided on:       16.09.2016

 

Kartar Singh son of Bakhtaur Singh, resident of Village Khanauri Kalan, Tehsil Dhuri, Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.             HDFC Bank Ltd. Ward No.16, New Mandi Road, Dhuri, Tehsil Dhuri, through its Branch Manager. Distt Sangrur.

2.             HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited, Sanatan Mandir, Nabha Gate, Sangrur through its Branch Manager.  (GIVEN UP BY COMPLAINANT ON 12.04.2016).

3.             HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited, Ramon House, HT Parekh Marg, 169, Backbay Reclamation, Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020. (GIVEN UP BY COMPLAINANT ON 12.04.2016).

                                                        …Opposite parties

For the complainant  :               Shri Ajaypal Singh, Adv.

For OP No.1             :               Shri N.S.Sahni, Adv.

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

               

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Kartar Singh complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OP in short) on the ground that the complainant along with his grandsons, namely, Sukhdeep Singh and Sukhwinder Singh approached  OP number 1 for obtaining the loan in the month of November, 2015. It is further stated that on 9.11.2015 the OPs sent a message on the mobile number 98550-65669 that a loan of Rs.19,15,000/- has been approved.  It is further stated that thereafter the complainant completed the requirements for the loan against his 4.5 acres agriculture land and as such the OP opened the joint account of the complainant with his grandsons. It is further stated that the agriculture land of 4.5 acres of the complainant was mortgaged vide rapat number 119 dated 17.11.2015. Further case of the complainant is that thereafter the complainant received the loan amount of Rs.12,72,637/- from the OPs and when the complainant again approached the OP number 1, he found that the OP number 1 has deducted Rs.8000/- on account of document charges and they further assured that the remaining amount of Rs.635,000/- would be deposited in the account of the complainant, but the same was never deposited in his account. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to release the amount of Rs.6,35,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by OP number 1, it is admitted that the complainant along with his grandsons approached the Op for taking the loan. Further it is stated that the complainant agreed to mortgage his land measuring six acres in favour of the OP number 1 and at that time, the CC limit of the complainant was existing with the State Bank of Patiala and as per the terms and conditions of the sanction letter dated 30.11.2015, the said limit was to be closed by the complainant. It was clearly mentioned in the sanction letter that the CC limit amount of Rs.12,80,000/- will be disbursed after mortgage of land measuring 1.5 acres and the total land mortgage will be 6 acres against total exposure of Rs.19.15 Lacs.  It has been denied that the OP assured the complainant that the sum of Rs.6,35,000/- will be deposited in  the account as early as possible. It is stated that the complainant and his grandsons have not mortgaged the land measuring 1.5 acres more as per the sanctioned letter and thus the amount of Rs.6,35,000/- was not deposited in the account of the complainant.   Any deficiency in service on the part of the OP has been denied.

 

3.             Record shows that the complainant made a statement on 12.4.2016 whereby he gave up the opposite parties number 2 and 3.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit of Kartar Singh, Ex.C-2 affidavit of Sukhdeep Singh, Ex.C-3 copy of jamabandi, Ex.C-4 and Ex.C-5 copies of Text SMS, Ex.C-6 and Ex.C-7 copies of passbooks, Ex.C-8 affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP number has produced Ex.OP1/1 affidavit, Ex.OP1/2 copy of power of attorney, Ex.OP1/3 copy of sanction letter dated 30.11.2015, Ex.OP1/4 copy of sanction letter dated 30.11.2015 and closed evidence.

 

5.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits part acceptance, for these reasons.

 

 

6.             After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and on the perusal of the documents placed on record, we find that the main controversy in the present complaint is with regard to the amount of loan. The version of the complainant is that the OPs had approved the loan for Rs.19,15,000/-, whereas the complainant has received only a sum of Rs.12,72,637/- from the OP.

 

 

7.             We have gone through the document Ex.OP1/3 and Ex.Op1/4 and find that the complainant was sanctioned two loans for Rs.12,80,000/- and Rs.6,35,000/- and the total loan was sanctioned for Rs.19,15,000/-. These two documents bears the signatures of both the parties and in order to receive the total loan of Rs.19,15,000/- the complainants were required to mortgage six acres of his agricultural land.  But, from the perusal of the record, we find that the complainant had not mortgaged six acres of agricultural land with the Op. The Op has also mentioned this fact in the written reply mentioning that “it was clearly mentioned in the sanction letter that the CC limit amount of Rs.12,80,000/- will be disbursed first time with 4.5 acres mortgage of land and remaining amount of Rs.6,35,000/- will be disbursed after mortgage of land measuring 1.5 acres and total land mortgage will be six acres against the total exposure of Rs.19.15 Lacs.”  So, we find that the OPs had not disbursed the amount sanctioned as per the document Ex.Op1/4 as the complainant had not mortgaged the land as per the terms of the sanction letter.

 

 

8.             So, keeping in view of the documents of sanction, we find that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. But, as the mutation has been entered for a loan of Rs.19,15,000/- instead of Rs.12,80,000/-, as such we direct the OP number 1 to get the same rectified from the revenue record and the correct amount of the loan as per the document Ex.OP1/3 be got entered.  Since this discrepancy is due to the non adhering of the terms and conditions by the complainant, so it cannot be said that there is any harassment and mental tension and agony to the complainant due to the act of the OP, but still we find that the ends of justice would be met if the proper amount of loan i.e. Rs.12,80,000/- be entered in the revenue record instead of Rs.19,15,000/-.   This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication.

9.             A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                September 16, 2016.

 

                                                (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                     President

                               

 

                                                   (K.C.Sharma)

                                                        Member

 

 

                                                  (Sarita Garg)

                                                         Member