District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No. 371/2022.
Date of Institution:12.10.2020
Date of Order: 28.04.2023.
Sh. Lekhraj Bokan S/o Sh. Chandan Singh Bokan age 68 years R/o H.No. 827, Gali NO. 12, Ward No. 13, Near YMCA Chowk Indra Nagar, Faridabad, Sector-7, Faridabad (Haryana) – 121006, Mobile No. 76982277438.
Through his Lrs.
- Smt. Chandar Wati W/o late Shri Lekhraj Bokan (Wife)
- Smt. Mukesh D/o late Sh. Lekhraj Bokan (Daughter)
- Mahender Pratap S/o late Sh. Lekhraj Bokan (Son)
- Smt. Pramila D/o late Sh. Lekhraj Bokan (Daughter)
- Smt. Mamta W/o late Sh. Parkash S/o late Sh. Lekhraj Bokan (Daughter in law)
…….Complainant……..
Versus
HDFC Bank Ltd. B.K.Chowk, NIT Faridabad, 121001, Branch Code 0093, NIT, Faridabad Prime through its Branch-Divisional Manager.
…Opposite party
Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Now amended Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.
BEFORE: Amit Arora……………..President
Mukesh Sharma…………Member.
Indira Bhadana………….Member.
PRESENT: Sh. Rajender Mittal, counsel for the complainant. (complainant died on dated 16.01.2022)
Sh. Rajiv Rana , counsel for opposite party.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant had taken a Gold loan of Rs.1,35,000/- from the opposite party vide loan account No. 71623375 dated 08.08.2018, product name “LOAN FOR PSLOROTHER USECOLL BY GOLD’ and the complainant had pledged his golden ornaments consisting of bangles (8) weighting 67.700 gm., Necklace (1) weighing 22.100 gms., chain (1) weighing 10,900 gm. And earrings (2) weighting 8,400 gm. Total weight of the gold was 109.100 g.m. and the opposite party had assured the complainant that as and when he would liquidate the loan amount the above said golden ornaments would be released to the complainant immediately as the above said golden ornaments had been kept by the opposite party only for security of their loan amount and the opposite party had further assured the complainant that the complainant was the true owner of the above said gold and the opposite party would not sell the above said golden ornaments without the prior permission and consent of the complainant even after the maturity of the loan account. At the time of sanctioning of the gold loan the opposite party had disbursed an amount of Rs.1,26,313/- in total to the complainant after deducting the interest as well as processing fee etc. vide loan sanction order dated 08.08.2018 and the maturity date of the above said gold loan was 08.02.2019. \The complainant could not arrange the amount to settle the above said loan account at its maturity, hence the complainant approached the opposite party and requested the opposite party to extend the maturity period of the above said loan account then the opposite party had directed the complainant to deposit an amount of Rs.9,008/- and only then the
opposite party would extend the maturity period of the above said loan account for a period of one year and accordingly the complainant had deposited an amount of Rs.9,008/- with the opposite party on 11.02.2019 vide deposit receipt dated 11.02.2019 duly issued by the opposite party but the opposite party did not handed over any kind of documents regarding the extension period of the loan account to the complainant. In the month of February 2020 the complainant approached the opposite party to settle the loan amount alongwith the requisite money but the officials of the opposite party told the complainant that if he wanted to take his gold back then he had to pay an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- in total and only then they would return the above said golden ornaments. The complainant requested the opposite party and their officials not to raise their illegal demand as he had taken only Rs.1,35,000/- and he had also paid interest and other fees in advance as per the demand of the opposite party but the opposite party did not given any satisfactory reply and kept on dilly delaying the matter on one pretext or the other. Thereafter the complainant had approached the opposite parties several times and requested the opposite party to settle the above said loan account but the opposite party kept on deferring the matter by raising their illegal demand and with the plea that there was a lockdown in the entire country due to Covid-19 and did not settle down the matter after the repeated request of the complainant, the reason best known to the opposite party. The complainant sent legal notice dated 08.09.2020 to the opposite party through registered post but all in vain. The aforesaid act of opposite party amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite party to:
a) take Rs.1,35,000/- in total (alongwith interest if any) and settle the loan account of the complainant and to release the above mentioned golden
ornaments of the complainant which the opposite party had taken as security at the time of sanctioning of the gold loan.
b) pay Rs. 6,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
c) pay Rs. 15,000 /-as litigation expenses.
2. Opposite party put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that as per the loan agreement, Clause 24 signed by the complainant, upon the occurrence of an event of default bank should be entitled to sell the Gold by private treaty or publication or otherwise. The complainant made an application individually (Gold Loan Reference No. LOS No. 71895785) for loan against pledge of gold with Faridabad branch of the answering opposite party and after scrutiny of documents, loan was granted to complainant. The complainant duly accepted all terms and conditions of the loan agreements for availing the gold loan amounting to Rs.1,35,000/- for a period of six months and accordingly executed all required documents in favour of the answering opposite party. It was further submitted that after considering the representation made by the complainant, the answering opposite party disbursed an amount of Rs.1,26,313/- on 08.08.2019 vide loan account NO. 71623375 and the complainant was required to serve the interest monthly and repay the entire loan by 08.02.2019 as per the terms and conditions of the loan agreement. After availing the loan facilities, the complainant failed to adhere the terms and conditions of the loan agreement and did not pay the interest and loan amount within stipulate d time period and avoided it deliberately and intentionally despite of several reindeers and notices issued by the answering opposite party. The answering opposite party had issued a notice dated 23.08.2019 regarding maturity of the gold loan and clearly specified with reference to earlier
communication that the gold loan was being matured on 11.08.2019 and requested and called upon the complainant to arrange for repayment of the gold loan since the complainant did not repay the gold loan inspite of several requests and reminders and thereafter a notice dated 09.09.2019 was again issued to the complainant for recalling advance-mature gold loan No. A1215466 of Rs.1,35,000/- wherein it was clarified to the complainant to repay an amount of Rs.1,35,000/- alongwith interest and charges thereon at contracted rate within the next seven days from the date this notice. Apart from this the answering opposite party also issued a notice dated 23.09.2019 for sale of pledged gold, wherein it was clarified that the entire loan facility was already recalled and the complainant was to repay an amount of Rs.1,35,000/- alongwith contracted interest and charges as per agreed terms and conditions of the loan documents within a period of seven days, otherwise bank should proceed to sell the pledged gold and adjust the sale procees against the outstanding of loan account of the complainant. Failing which the bank, without giving any further notice and without prejudice to the bank’s right under the loan agreement and/or under law or equity, shall proceed to sell the pledged gold and adjust the sale proceeds against the outstanding of his loan account. Despite of issuance of these notice, the complainant failed to clear the outstanding dues of loan amount and did not even bother to reply the said notices and in view of that the answering opposite party invited tenders with respect to sale of the subject secured assets (pledged gold) auctioned held on 21.11.2019 and the answering opposite party got valuation of the gold articles pledge with the bank form the Government approved valuer S.C.Jewellers and N.S.Heera & Sons Jewellers on 21.11.2019 and accordingly the answering opposite party issued a letter dated 21.11.2019 and accordingly the answering opposite party issued a letter dated 21.11.2019 to successful bidder and delivered the same to the successful bidder and accordingly the answering opposite party issued a notice dated
22.11.2019 regarding proceeds of the sale of jewellery pledged to secure the loan bearing loan account No. 71895785/A1215466 sold vide auctioned held on 21.11.2019 the pledged gold articles to recover the loan amount from the complainant. Opposite party denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
5. In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite party–HDFC Bank Ltd.. with the prayer to: a) take Rs.1,35,000/- in total (alongwith interest if any) and settle the loan account of the complainant and to release the above mentioned golden ornaments of the complainant which the opposite party had taken as security at the time of sanctioning of the gold loan. b) pay Rs. 6,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment . c) pay Rs. 15,000 /-as litigation expenses.
To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence, Ex.CW1/A – affidavit of Shri Lekhraj Bokan, Ex.C-1 – loan sanction order, Ex.C-2 – Receipt,, Ex.C-3 – receipt dated 11.02.2019,, Ex.C-4 – loan release order,, Ex.C-5 – legal notice,, Ex.C-6 – postal receipt,
On the other hand counsel for the opposite party strongly agitated and opposed. As per the evidence of the opposite party Ex.RW1/A – affidavit of Bharti Thakur, Legal Manager and Authorized Representative of M/s. HDFC bank Limited, having its office at First floor, Tower-A, Plot No.31, Nazafgarh Industrial
Area, Shivaji Marge, Moti Nagar, New Delhi, Ex. R-1- Resolution, EX.R-2 – Gold Loan Application Form, Ex.R3 - letter dated 11.02.2019, Ex.R-4 - statement
period 08.08.2018 to 01.02.2021, Ex.R-5 ,6 & 7 – without prejudice letters, Ex.R-8 - valuation certificate,, Ex.R-9 – letter to successful bidder, Ex.R-10 letter dated22.11.2019, Ex.R-11 – letter dated 17.09.2020,
6. During the course of argument, counsel for the complainant has filed the calculation vide Annx.X. The details are as under:
a. total gold which was mortgaged : 109.100gram
by the complainant
b. rate of gold in the month of 2019 : Rs.33,135/-per 10 gram.
c. Total amount of gold : 109.100 x Rs.33,135/-
=Rs.3,61,503/-
d. Our amount which has to be paid by the O.P : Rs.3,61,503/-
e. Payment receipt by us : Rs.1,26,313/-
Rs.3,61,503/-
7. During the course of arguments, counsel for the opposite party has also tendered letter dated 22.11.2019 regarding proceeds of the sale of jewellery pledged to secure your loan bearing loan account No. 71895785/A1215466 vide Ex.R9 & R-10 the Manager’s cheque only. As per letter dated 22.11.2019 in which it has been mentioned that the “we have sold the jewellery pledged with us as security for the loan. The amount recovered by us upon such sale of the pledged jewellery is Rs.66,126.12/-. The loan has been liquidated as follows :
Amount of loan : 1,35,000.00
Add: Acc interest : 11,657.88
Total amount due : 1,46,657.88
Amount received from sale : 2,12,794.00
Less: GST @ 3% : 6197.88
Net sales proceeds after tax : 2,06,596.12
Net balance amt. recoverable payable : 66,126.12
As per Manager’s Cheque bearing No. 107963 drawn on HDFC Bank, for an amount of Rs.66,126.12 in favour of the complainant Lekhraj Bokan which was given on 29.11.2019 vide Ex.R-10.
8. Keeping in view of the above submissions, the Commission is of opinion that as per Manager’s Cheque bearing No. 107963 drawn on HDFC Bank, for an amount of Rs.66,126.12 in favour of the complainant Lekhraj Bokan which was given on 29.11.2019 vide Ex.R-10 and the complainant filed this complaint before this Commission on 12.10.2020. This shows the malafidy of the complainant. Hence, this complaint is dismissed on the concealment of the facts with costs of Rs.5000/-. Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs.
Announced on:28.04.2023 (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Indira Bhadana)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
