Delhi

West Delhi

CC/09/843

T.SUDHKAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC BANK LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

26 Sep 2016

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

150-151, Community Centre, C-Block, JanakPuri, New Delhi – 110058

 

                                                                                                             Date of institution             14.9.09

Case. No.843/09                                                                                                                   Date of order:                   26.9.16

In the matter of

 

T. Sudhakar,

B-28A,Ramdutt Enclave,

Lal Mandir Road,

Uttam Nagar,New Delhi-59.                                                                                                                              

Mrs. T. Nagendera Mani,

B-28A,Ramdutt Enclave,

Lal Mandir Road,

Uttam Nagar,New Delhi-59.                                                                               COMPLAINANTS

VERSUS

HDFC Bank Ltd.,

West Patel Nagar Branch,New Delhi.

 

HDFC Bank Ltd.,

HDFC Bank House,

Senapati Bapat Marg,

Lower Parel, (West), Mumbai-13

 

Branch Manager ,

HDC Bank Ltd.,

Retail Asset Division,

B-6/3, First Floor,

Safdarjung Community Center,

Opp. Deer Park,New Delhi.                                                                                 OPPOSITE PARTIES

ORDER

R.S. BAGRI, PRESIDENT

 

            The brief relevant facts necessary for disposal of the present complaint as stated are that the complainants as co-borrowers took house loan of Rs.14,00,000/- in the year 2004

2

from the Punjab Bank Ltd. on floated rate of  interest. The Punjab Bank Ltd. was merged  in Centurion Bank of Punjab.  Later on Centurion Bank of Punjab was merged in HDFC.   The complainants on 24.9.07 through e-mail approached the Opposite Parties for foreclosure of the loan.  The Opposite Parties vide letter dated 23.11.07 and 26.11.07 intimated the complainants that on 23.11.07 an amount of Rs.11,59,736/- was outstanding against the complainants and if foreclosure is done through funds from  PF, it would not attract foreclosure penalty of Rs.23595/-  On 16.10.08 it was certified that the complainants availed Rs.11,000,00/- from PF savings for closing home loan.  On 9.8.08 the complainants vide cheque No.885967 dated 7.8.08 deposited a sum of Rs.11,000,00/- with the Opposite Parties. But the Opposite Parties did not present the cheque of the complainants for collection and kept on charging delayed payment from the complainants.  The statements of account dated 23.9.08 issued by the Opposite Parties show that the Opposite Parties charged flat interest at the rate of 12% per annum contrary to the agreed floating rate of interest.   The Opposite Parties intentionally just to harm and harass the complainants and play fraud upon the complainants in the statement of account dated 23.9.08 intentionally did not take into account  instalments of Rs.14800/- each from May to December-2004 totaling Rs.1,19,040/-.  Further more the complainants found gradual increase in principal amount from 29^th instalment and onward increase in rate of interest in 30^th instalment.  The Opposite Parties failed to give satisfactory replies to the letters and e-mails of the complainants.  Therefore, on 6.9.08 the complainants  correspondence to the head office of the Opposite Parties and received reply.  The Opposite Parties have kept the original property   documents of the complainants.  The complainants wanted to avail  loan for purchase of another house but for the negligence of the Opposite Parties and reasons known to them they did not return the original  property documents of the house of the complainants.   Therefore, there is unfair trade practice and negligence on the part of the Opposite Parties.  Hence the present complaint for appropriate action against the Opposite Parties. 

 

            After notice Opposite Parties appeared and filed their written statement while admitting that the complainants availed loan of Rs.14,000,00/- from the Opposite Parties on floated rate of interest.  The terms of the agreement of loan were settled. The loan was to be repaid in 180 equated monthly instalments of Rs.14,880/- each.  The Opposite Parties were entitled to revise the rate of interest upwards or downwards at any time as per the policy, market conditions and applicable laws and regulations.   The rate of interest varies in accordance with prime lending rate (PLR) variations by the Reserve Bank of India at any time.   Accordingly, as per the terms of agreement, the home loan (PLR) was increased from

3

time to time and complainants were accordingly informed.   The complainants mortgaged their property  as security loan and as per the agreement there is an arbitration clause to resolve any dispute if arisen between the parties.  Hence the complaint is not maintainable.

 

            The complainants  applied for foreclosure of their loan account and the Opposite Parties sent reply through e-mail allowing the complainants to foreclose the loan amount as per the terms and conditions settled between the parties and the pre-closure penalty was waived off on receipt of  document.  There was no agreement between the parties that the complainants would deposit only Rs.11,00,000/- after nine  months of the dealing with Opposite Parties.  The complainants were to intimate the Opposite Parties at least 30 days before the foreclosure and ask the amount  required to be paid  and the officials of the bank  after approval/sanction from higher authorities would grant permission  for foreclosure of  the account by intimating as to how much amount is outstanding in the account of complainants.  But complainants   without any intimation about the foreclosure directly approached the Bank and deposited Rs.11,00,000/-.   Even it was not clear as to how much amount was outstanding against the complainants.    The Opposite Parties received the amount subject to approval of foreclosure and the amount was credited in the loan account of the complainants only after the required approval was obtained.   The Opposite Parties  did not claim interest at the rate of 12% for 1^st instalment to 49^th instalment.  The composition of each instalment consists of two parts  i.e. principal amount for the month and interest on total principal outstanding as on that date.   The complainants deposited Rs.45,202/- outstanding dues but the account has not been cleared/settled .   Therefore, balance remained in the loan account of the complainants and the property documents could not be released without clearing the entire outstanding loan amount .  Therefore, the Opposite Parties rightly sent demand letter to the complainants.  All other allegations of the complaint are vehemently denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

            Complainants filed replication to the reply of Opposite Parties while controverting the stand taken by Opposite Parties and reiterated their stand taken in the complaint.  The complainants further asserted that they paid the entire loan amount in time,  therefore, proper action in accordance with law be taken against the Opposite Parties and prayed for compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of manipulation, malpractice adopted by the Opposite Parties and for not providing proper information, Rs.7,00,000/- on account of

4

losses incurred due to non receipt of the original documents and  for not crediting the deposited amount of Rs.1,19,040/- for more than four years etc.s

 

            The parties were asked to lead evidence by way of affidavit.  The complainats filed affidavit of  T. Sudhakar and Mrs. T. Nagendera Mani, dated  27.10.10 wherein once again reiterated the stand taken in the complaint and controverted the stand taken by the Opposite Parties in their reply. The complainants in support  of their version filed copy of letter dated 31.12.03, 31.3.04, 15.1.05, , 2.4.09, 18.3.09,  16,10.08, 9.10.07, 14.8.08, 26.8.08,  24.9.07, demand notice dated 19.3.09, legal notice dated 16.3.09, copy of statements of account, several receipts , copy of statement for claiming deduction under Section 80C of Income Tax Act and   e-mails dated 3.5.09 and  10.9.08 etc.  They once again prayed for taking appropriate action in accordance with law against the Opposite Parties and pay compensation as prayed in the rejoinder.  The Opposite Parties filed affidavit of Sh. Raj Kumar Anand dated 20.12.10 wherein he once again reiterated their stand taken in the reply and asserted that there is no negligence and deficiency in service on part of Opposite Parties. 

 

            We have heard Ld.  counsel for parties.  After hearing both the sides and  going through the material on record  first of all, we are of the opinion that there is no specific prayer/relief clause  in the complaint though the complainants  in rejoinder prayed for compensation on various counts. 

 

Secondly, from the statements of account it is evident that some amount of Opposite Parties is outstanding in the   loan account of the complainants.   The complainants have not cleared the loan account of the Opposite Parties.

 

 Ld. Counsel for complainant has failed to point out any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on  part of the  Opposite Parties.  Whereas from the material on record, it is established that the complainants themselves did not follow correct procedure for seeking foreclosure of the loan account.   They did not apply for permission for closure and made request to the Opposite Parties to disclose the outstanding amount in the loan account of the complainants.  They themselves deposited Rs.11,00,000/- only  despite more amount was outstanding against them in the loan account.  

5

  The property documents were mortgaged by the complainants as security of the loan.   The property documents could be returned only after clearing of the loan amount.   But the complainants failed to show that there is any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on part of the  Opposite Parties. They also failed to show that they have repaid the entire loan.     Wheras it is established that the complainants did not follow the rules, regulations terms and conditions of the agreement.  They did not repay the whole  loan amount, therefore,the Opposite Parties rightly did not return the property documents of the complainants.  

 

Hence there is no merit in the complaint and same is dismissed.  

 

Order pronounced on :26.9.16

• Copy of order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.

Thereafter, file be  consigned to record.

 

(URMILA GUPTA)                                                                             (R.S.  BAGRI)     

MEMBER                                                                                               PRESIDENT