Punjab

Patiala

CC/19/496

Dalbag Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC Bank Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Sh Bharpur Singh

22 Mar 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

 

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/ 496/2019
Date of Institution	:	16/12/2019
Date of Decision	:	22/3/2023

 

Dalbag Singh s/o Mehta Singh, resident of village Gopalpur, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

HDFC Bank, Branch 11B-12B, B Block, Calibre Market, Chandigarh Patiala Road, Rajpura, District Patiala through its Branch Manager.

                                                                   …………Opposite Party

 

Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act

 

QUORUM

                                      Hon’ble Mr.S.K.Aggarwal, President

                                      Hon’ble Mr.G.S.Nagi,Member         

 

 

PRESENT:                   Sh.Bharpur Singh, counsel for complainant.

                             Opposite ex-parte.                 

 

                                     

 ORDER                                          

1. The instant complaint is filed by Dalbag Singh S/o Mehta Singh      (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against HDFC Bank (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s) under the Consumer Protection Act ( for short the Act).
2. The averments put forth by the complainant are as follows:

That he is maintaining saving bank account No.50100044928041 with the OP. On 9.9.2015 complainant borrowed gold loan for a sum of Rs.1,62,500/-from OP by pledging his gold weighing 109.100GM which was disbursed vide loan account No.1064669 for a tenure of 12 months to be matured on 9.9.2016.First installment of loan was debited from the account of complainant on 1.10.2015, in the sum of Rs.1132/-.Thereafter loan installment of Rs.1544/-was auto debited from the account of complainant. Last EMI was debited from his account on 1.9.2016.Thereafter, complainant went to office of OP for getting his gold back,but OP disclosed him that his gold had been auctioned by it. It is averred that this act of the OP is illegal, arbitrary and unlawful. It amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP, which caused mental agony and harassment to the complainant. Consequently, prayer has been made for acceptance of the complaint.  

3. Notice of the complaint was given to the OP through registered post.The same has not been received back unserved nor OP appeared to contest the complaint. Accordingly vide order dated 9.11.2020, OP was proceeded against exparte.
4. In evidence, ld. counsel has tendered Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents, Ex.C1 copy of loan application form, Ex.C2 copy of valuation certificate of gold, Ex.C3 copy of receipt showing weight, Ex.C4 copy of loan sanction letter,Ex.C5 copy of bank statement and closed evidence.
5. We have heard the ld. counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
6. From the perusal of record, it transpires that complainant approached OP for Gold Loan of Rs.1,62,500/-and submitted application Ex.C1 for this purpose on 9.9.2015,Ex.C3 is the copy of receipt, vide which complainant pledged his gold weighing 109.100 Grams as security.Ex.C4 is the loan sanction order dated 9.9.2015. The maturity date of loan has been mentioned in this letter as 9.9.2016.
7. From the documents, it is established that cause of action has arisen to the complainant on 9.9.2016.The complainant approached this Commission on 16.12.2019 i.e. after the period of two year. No application for condonation of delay has been filed, disclosing the reason as to why the same has not been filed within the prescribed period of two years.
8. As per section 69 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the complaint shall be filed before this Commission within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. This would mean two years from the day the deficiency in service or defect in goods has arisen/detected of operation. 
9.       Since the  complaint has been filed after the period of two years, therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed being barred by limitation. We order accordingly. Complainant is left to bear his own costs.
408. ONOUNCED
409.  

 

                                              G.S.Nagi                           S.K.AGGARWAL

                                              Member                          President