BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT.

Complaint No. : 110

Date of Institution : 22.4.2010

Date of Decision : 13.9.2010

Raj Kumar aged 34 years son of Ram Krishan, resident of Mohalla Khokhran Wala, Neem Wali Gali, Faridkot.

...Complainant

Versus

1. HDFC Bank Ltd., Near Bus Stand, Branch Faridkot, through its Branch Manager.

2. HDFC Bank Ltd., Branch Moga, Near Pankaj Motors, GT Road, Moga, through its Branch Manager.

3. HDFC Bank Ltd., E-30/7, The Mall, Ferozepur City, through its Branch Manager.

4. Mr. Chandan Puri, Branch Manager, HDFC Bank Ltd., E-30/7, The Mall, Ferozepur City.

5. HDFC Bank Ltd., HDFC Bank House, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai-400013, through its authorized officer/signatory.

...Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Quorum: Sh. Ashok Kumar President

Dr. H.L. Mittal Member

Present: Sh. B.D. Kumar counsel for the complainant.

Sh. Atul Gupta counsel for the opposite parties.

ORDER

Complainant has filed the present complaint against the opposite parties for not issuing the No Objection Certificate (NOC) to the complainant and to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony besides Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses.

2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he had applied for a loan of Rs. 1 lac with the opposite party No. 2 for purchase of one used car. The opposite parties after completing all the formalities sanctioned the loan. The complainant had repaid the loan amount alongwith interest up to date with the opposite parties and nothing now remains due towards the complainant. He cleared the whole loan on 18.12.2009, so the complainant requested the opposite parties to issue the Clearance Certificate/NOC, but they told that it would be issued in a day or so. The complainant further agreed to resale of his car to one Satpal Singh son of Jugraj Singh and was to arrange No Objection Certificate to be issued by the opposite parties before 31.12.2009. It was also agreed between the complainant and said Satpal Singh that in case of failure to get the certificate issued in time the complainant will have to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to Satpal Singh as damages and the agreement between them would be rendered as null and void. After that the opposite party No. 1 directed the complainant to visit their office at Ferozepur and collect the NOC from there. The complainant had deputed his friend Sanjeev Kumar to visit the office at Ferozepur to collect the NOC, who visited the Branch of opposite parties at Ferozepur on 7.2.2010 but Mr. Chandan Puri, Branch Manager, refused to hand over the same to said Sanjeev Kumar and insisted that the complainant should be present in person to collect the said NOC. On 9.2.2010, the complainant himself visited the Branch of opposite parties at Ferozepur but the opposite parties refused to hand over the NOC to the complainant on the ground that banking time was over whereas he had reached the office at 3.20 PM. Opposite party No. 4 was requested time and again to issue NOC but he did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. Even a complaint was lodged with customer care centre bearing No. 308720361. On 10.2.2010, the complainant again requested the opposite party No. 4 to issued the NOC but the same was not issued on the ground that Mr. Umesh Kumar Clerk who issues the NOC was not in the seat, so the complainant on that day moved one application before the opposite party No. 4 and again made the request to issue the NOC. Finally, the opposite parties sent the NOC by courier ignoring their own instructions that the complainant should be present in person to collect the NOC and same was received by the complainant on 15.2.2010. Due to all this the complainant had suffered a loss of Rs. 10,000/- which he had paid to Satpal Singh as damages on account of delay in issuing the NOC by the opposite parties. The opposite parties have been negligent in rendering the service, which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Complainant is also entitled for compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs. 10,000/-. Hence this complaint.

3. The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 23.4.2010 complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

4. In response to the notice, the opposite parties filed written statement taking preliminary objections that the opposite party never refused to give NOC. In fact after the closure of loan on 31.12.2009 complainant came to the branch office at Faridkot and requested the manager not to send NOC by post as his address is not proper and he want NOC to be given by hand. As per policy of bank NOC is send to customer through courier as per the address written in the agreement but as per the request of customer opposite party agreed to give NOC by hand on completion of formalities but to the utter surprise of the opposite party complainant never turned up except on 10.2.2010 and he was not having sufficient documents therefore opposite party refused to hand over the NOC and sent the same by post to the complainant. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant cleared whole of the loan amount. It is denied if any agreement was made between the complainant and Satpal Singh. It is admitted that complainant's friend visited the office of the opposite party at Ferozepur but he was not holding any authority letter so the opposite party refused to handover him NOC. It is correct that NOC was received by the complainant on 15.2.2010 through courier as the complainant signed the documents necessary at the time of termination of loan and confirmed the address. Even the complainant was not having the ID proof when he came to opposite party, therefore opposite party did not issue NOC by hand. So, there is no deficiency or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. The allegations with regard to relief sought too were refuted with a prayer that complaint deserves to be dismissed with costs.

5. All the parties wanted to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings and proper opportunity was given to them. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of application dated 10.2.2010 Ex.C-2, statement of accounts Ex.C-3, copy of receipt dated 18.12.2009 Ex.C-4, affidavit of Satpal Singh Ex.C-5, affidavit of Sanjiv Kumar Ex.C-6, authority letter dated 7.2.2010 Ex.C-7 and closed his evidence.

6. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Aditya Vikram Ex.R-1, affidavit of Pankaj Gupta Ex.R-2 and closed their evidence.

7. We have heard learned counsel for parties and have very carefully gone through the affidavits & documents on the file. Our observations & findings are as under.-

8. Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently argued that No objection certificate was illegally and wrongly withheld by the opposite parties for no fault of the complainant in spite of his personal visits and representations.

9. Learned counsel for the opposite parties however contended that the stance of the complainant is frivolous as he was never refused the No Objection Certificate. In fact, after the closure of loan account on 31.12.2009 complainant insisted upon receiving No Objection Certificate by him. However, he did not turn up to complete formalities to enable issuance of No Objection Certificate by the opposite parties. His address was not proper to dispatch the document to him by post. Moreover, he has already received NOC on 15.2.2010 so there is no deficiency on the part of the opposite parties.

10. We have considered the rival contentions in the light of evidence on record. The admitted facts of the case are that the complainant took loan of Rs. 1,00,000/- payable till 19.5.2010. Admittedly, last installment of Rs. 6665.91 paise was paid by the complainant on 18.12.2009 as is evident from receipt Ex.C-4. From the stance taken by both the sides it is evident that issuance of No Objection Certificate was unnecessarily delayed due to lackadaisical approach of opposite parties in spite of personal visits and representation of the complainant. It was not given to him by hand on his personal visit on the pretext of once due to non production of his ID proof or completion of other formalities. Ultimately, it was dispatched to his address from where he received on 15.2.2010 in spite of the stand taken by the opposite parties that his address was not proper. In this way, deficiency of service is writ large on the part of the opposite parties and as such complainant deserves compensation and litigation expenses for this. However, no cogent and reliable evidence in regard to claim of Rs. 10,000/- under alleged agreement to sell the car to Satpal deponent of affidavit Ex.C-5 is forthcoming. No agreement to this effect even was brought to the notice nor proved on record. Therefore, question of payment of Rs. 10,000/- in this regard does not arise at all.

11. In view of the above observations and findings, the complaint is partly accepted. Accordingly, the opposite parties are directed to pay Rs. 3,000/- as compensation on account of mental tension, inconvenience and harassment and Rs. 2,000/- on account of litigation expenses, totaling Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant, within the period of one month from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the opposite parties shall pay the above mentioned amount of Rs. 5,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the filing of this complaint till realization of the amount. In case no compliance is made out of this order, complainant shall be entitled to proceed under the provisions of Sections 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Forum:

Dated: 13.9.2010

Member President (Dr. H.L. Mittal) (Ashok Kumar)