Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/351/2018

M.Umapathy - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC Bank Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.P.Malliga

21 May 2019

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  08.02.2012

                                                               Order pronounced on:  21.05.2019

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT:  TMT.K.LAKSHMIKANTHAM, B.Sc., B.L., DTL.,DCL, DL & AL -  PRESIDENT

 

TMT.P.V.JEYANTHI B.A., MEMBER - I

 

TUESDAY  THE 21^st  DAY OF MAY 2019

 

C.C.NO.351/2018

 

M.Umapathy,

No.32/10, Thiru.Vi.Ka.Street,

Pallavaram,

Chennai – 600 043.

                                                                                        …..Complainant

 ..Vs..

The Manager,

HDFC Bank Limited,

No.56, G.N.Chetty Road,

T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017.

.....Opposite Party

Date of complaint                                 : 23.02.2012

Counsel for Complainant                      : M/s.P.Malliga & M.Sathyan

 

Counsel for    opposite party                    : Mr.T.K.M. Sai Krishnan,

                                                                    Mrs.N.Premalatha

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT TMT.K.LAKSHMIKANTHAM, B.Sc., B.L., DTL.,DCL, DL & AL

          This complaint is filed by the complainant to direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation and also to pay a sum of Rs.3,100/- with 12% interest from 05.09.2006 till date debited by the opposite party after completion of the loan period with cost of complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:`

          The complainant  availed a two wheeler loan from the opposite party for a sum of Rs.35,000/- under Loan Account No.1784780 and  the instalment amount is Rs.3,120/- and the instalment amount was debited from his account on 5^th of every month directly (ECS). The first instalment starts on 19.09.2005 and it ends on 05.08.2006. At the time of availing loan the opposite party had obtained 3 blank, undated, signed cheques as security. Every month instalment was debited from his account promptly. The loan period was 12 months and the last due falls on 05.08.2006 but the opposite party had debited one more instalment amount i.e. after 05.08.2006 from his account and admitting the mistake the opposite party had given a cheque no. 154971 dated 22.03.2010 for a sum of Rs.3,100/- and when the cheque was presented by the complainant in his Bank, K.C.C.B. Ltd., Pallavaram Branch for realization, it was returned for the reason “Crossed To Two Banks”. The entire loan amount was debited by the opposite party from the complainant account on 05.08.2006 itself and apart from that one more instalment was also debited without his knowledge. After completion of the two wheeler loan period on 05.08.2006 and also debiting one more  instalment the opposite party had failed and neglected to send NOC  and loan discharge certificate regarding two wheeler loan, inspite of repeated demands. At last after a period of 4 years, the opposite party had sent the NOC and other related documents on 19.03.2010 after receiving the complainant’s demand letter dated 11.03.2010. The acts of the opposite party made the complainant sleepless for several nights causing mental agony and thus interfering in his regular works. The complainant states that the opposite party act in not sending NOC and loan discharge certificate regarding two wheeler loan after a period of 4 years, when the loan amount has been fully  paid on 05.08.2006 and debiting of one more instalment of Rs.3,120/- and the cheque tendered by the opposite party  for the debited one month instalment returned, all amounts to deficiency in service within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act. Hence the complaint.

2. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE   OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

           The complainant was disbursed with credit facility vide loan account No.1784780 for a sum of Rs.35,000/-. The complainant agreed to pay the amount financed in 12 equated monthly installments of Rs.3,120 each. The last EMI date falls on 05.08.2006. The opposite party denies the averments that three blank, undated signed cheques were handed over to the opposite party . The complainant had given mandate for auto debit/standard instruction from his bank account for the payment of all the dues in the aforesaid loan account and the EMI amount of Rs.3,120/- will be debited from his account on 5^th of every month, in such event the complainant ought to have sufficient funds in his bank account to honour the auto debit/standard instruction mandate on 5^th of every month, i.e till 05.08.2006 as agreed by the complainant. The standard instruction forms were not filled and signed by the complainant in the prescribed manner, therefore the opposite party requested the complainant to fill in a fresh from as prescribed and the same submitted by the complainant to the opposite party with delay for the reasons best known to him. In the mean time the installment became due on 05.10.2005. Though sufficient funds were available in the bank account of the complainant, the opposite party was not permitted to debit the EMI amount without the written standard instruction form the complainant. The delay in the part of the complainant to hand over the standard instruction form resulted in this confusion and opposite party cannot be made responsible or blamed. The opposite party bank to provide better service and attention to the  new customer of the bank magnanimously restrained from levying, bounce charges of Rs.450/- on the complainant loan account and debited the installment amount of Rs.3,120/- from the complainant’s account only on 21.10.2005 after taking the standard instruction mandate from the complainant. The penal interest/overdue charges will be levied at the end of every month, after taking into account the date of dishonor and the date of payment  of such amount which was not paid by the complainant on the scheduled date. Therefore a sum of Rs.39/- was levied as overdue charges on 31.10.2005.  The complainant failed to honour his 11^th installment on the schedule date i.e on 05.07.2006, hence cheque bounce charges of Rs.450/- was levied immediately after the dishonor of the auto debit mandate/standard instruction. Moreover as a matter of fact since the complainant had given auto debit/standard instruction to service the aforesaid loan account, the opposite party had debited exactly the aggregate amount of EMI and cheque bounce charges and overdue charges i.e Rs.3,120+Rs.450+39 = 3609/-  (on 12.07.2006 a sum of Rs.2,802/- and on 18.07.2006 a sum of Rs.807/- respectively).Subsequently the complainant knowing the above fact, he had paid a sum Rs.3,120/- by cash on 22.07.2006.  There was an excess amount of Rs.3,120/- was showing to credit in the loan account as on 22.07.2006. As stated in the previous paragraph the penal interest/overdue charges was calculated on the last date of the month of July 2006 and Rs.20/- levied on the loan account. 05.08.2006 being the last instalment date for Rs.3,120/- the opposite party bank debited available amount in the account and appropriately given credit of Rs.3,100/- to the complainant loan account after deducting the penal interest/overdue charges of Rs.20/- The complainant had paid his monthly due belatedly as against the due date. The complainant never approached any appropriate person in the bank requesting for the details or for the refund of said amount. The moment the complainant addressed his grievance vide letter dated 11.03.2010 the opposite party without any  delay, sent a cheque for a sum of Rs.3,100/- to the complainant and he had agreed the receipt of the same in the present complaint. The reason for dishonor of the said cheque was not intimated to the bank by the complainant and he has not filed any document for service of such intimation letter. Even now the opposite party to prove their bona fide   they are ready with a new cheque bearing No.839001 dated 13.06.2012 drawn on HDFC Bank RK Salai Branch for a sum of Rs.3,100/-. Hence there was no deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant.            

3. The complainant and the    opposite party  had come forward with their respective proof affidavit and documents. Ex.A1 to Ex.A9 were marked on the side of the complainant and the opposite parties filed  proof affidavit and documents Ex.B1 to Ex.B3. 

          4. The written arguments of the complainant and the  opposite party  were filed and the oral arguments of the both were heard.     

5. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

6. POINT NO :1 

Availing of loan by the complainant  from the opposite party  vide account No.1784780 for a sum of Rs.35,000/-  and agreed to repay the amount in 12  equal monthly instalments  @ Rs.3,120/- each and the last EMI falls on 05.08.2006  are all admitted facts.  The opposite party has auto debit/standard  instructions from the complainant’s account to the loan account was admitted  by the opposite party to have given belatedly. Ex.A1 is the loan sanction letter with repayment schedule dated 08.10.2005. Ex.B2 is the statement of accounts which covers  the loan period.  From Ex.B2 it is inferred that bank has not obtained the standing instructions as on the date of loan disbursement and the written standard instructions would have been obtained  at a later date, hence the belated payment at the initial stage would have  happened  Rs.39/- was charged by the opposite party  as overdue charges in the month of October 2015 for the late payment in view of absence of standard  instructions. Subsequently, monthly EMI was received without any default, but the instalment was bounced in the month of July 2016 (11^th instalment) since  no amount was debited on the due date of 05.07.2006 and bouncing and overdue charges of Rs.450/- +Rs. 39/- = 489/- was  debited  and then regular EMI was taken up in a split up figure  of Rs.2,802/- and Rs.807/-on 18.07.2006. Again for the same month i.e. the due amount of Rs.3120/- for 11^th  instalment was paid by the complainant  by cash without knowing the fact of  the EMI  debited with already available amounts in split up figures. Hence there was an excess amount of Rs.3,100/-after the next due for the month of August 2006 was debited  and loan repayment had come to an end on the scheduled month August 2006, but with excess payment of Rs.3,100/- admittedly.  One more instalment of  Rs.3,100/- was debited by the opposite party, because of this there was  an over payment of Rs.3,100/- which is also not denied by the opposite party bank. The completion of the dues and the loan account by the end of the scheduled period of 05.08.2006 is also not denied by the opposite party.

07. The contention of the complainant  is that as soon as the loan payments are completed, the opposite party  failed to send NOC  and also not refunded the excess amount paid by the complainant  and after it was informed through Ex.A2 letter dated 11.03.2010  by complainant,  the opposite party  had  complied  by sending NOC and also a cheque for Rs.3,100/- which was returned as:  “Crossed to Two Banks”  as per the return memo in Ex.A6 and then complainant  had written a letter dated  09.04.2010 vide Ex.A7 and  also issued  legal notice dated  06.01.2012 in Ex.A8  through his advocate regarding the return of the cheque, and even after its receipt  vide Ex.A9, opposite party  had not taken any action to refund the amount .

08. The opposite party would contend that the complainant had paid his monthly dues belatedly as against the due date and it was not brought to the knowledge of the Forum than  the excess payment claim and the return of cheque was not intimated to the opposite party and NOC was sent on 19.03.2010 as soon as the opposite party received the letter on 11.03.2010 vide Ex.B2. The opposite party is ready to return the amount by way of a new cheque as shown in Ex.B3 in lieu of the returned cheque.  Therefore there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

 09. As discussed in earlier paragraph, the complainant is charged with overdue charges and cheque bouncing charges, whenever the delay happened in EMI,  due payment as per rules and that is not disputed by the complainant. The complainant  is concerned only with respect to the return of excess amount to the complainant, non-issuance of NOC and return of related documents to the complainant as soon as the loan was cleared. The complainant had closed his loan account in August 2006 this complaint was filed in the month of the 2012.  Having waited for a long time and aggrieved, the complainant had written a letter to the opposite party on 11.03.2010 . In reply to that, the opposite party had sent the NOC and other related documents on 19.03.2010. The expectation from the complainant to inform about the excess EMI payment to the opposite party, as argued by the  opposite party is not correct and acceptable. It is the bound and duty of the opposite party to issue no objection certificate and release the related documents and also to return the excess EMI payment as soon as the loan account is closed. But that was not followed by opposite party  which clearly amounts to deficiency in service by opposite party. But opposite party  had  pointed out the belated payment of  EMI’s on two occasions by the complainant,for which the complainant  had  suffered cheque bouncing and overdue charges and it was  debited in the complainant’s account. Likewise the refund of excess claimed amount of Rs.3,100/- was refunded by way of cheque dated  22.03.2010 belatedly after the request made through letter in Ex.A2 dated 11.03.2010  by the complainant. Even after the cheque was returned and the same was informed to the opposite party by letter dated 09.04.2010 in Ex.A7 and also notice was issued by the counsel for complainant regarding the return of cheque on 06.01.2012 in Ex.A8 and even after its receipt by opposite party in Ex.A9 acknowledgement, the opposite party had neither replied nor paid the amount immediately. Now opposite party preferred the payment of Rs.3,100/- by way of cheque as shown in Ex.B3 dated 13.06.2012 will not resolve the opposite party   from their default and it clearly amounts to deficiency in service by the opposite party. Therefore on the points raised by the complainant,  it is concluded that the opposite party is deficient in their service and point No.1 is answered accordingly.

10. POINT N0:2

 The complainant  has pointed out the irresponsible activities of the opposite party , and as per the discussions held by us , there is deficiency in service by the opposite party, the complainant’s  sufferings for the loss and  physical stress due to the act of the opposite party is to be accepted and the opposite party  is liable to pay compensation for the same. Therefore opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,100/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from 05.09.2006 till date of payment and also to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- as compensation for mental agony and stress  besides the payment of Rs.5,000/- for costs.                           

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed. The opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,100/-(Rupees three thousand and one hundred only) to the complainant with 9% interest per annum from 05.09.2006 till date of  payment and also to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) as compensation for mental agony and stress besides, a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) for costs.

The above amount shall be paid to the complainant within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 21^st day of May 2019.

 

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 08.10.2005         Two Wheeler loan sanction letter to the complainant along with repayment schedule

 

Ex.A2 dated 11.03.2010         Complainant  letter to the opposite party

 

Ex.A3 dated 18.03.2010         Intimation letter

Ex.A4 dated 19.03.2010         No objection certificate issued by the opposite party

 

Ex.A5 dated 22.03.2010         Cheque No.154971

 

Ex.A6 dated 03.04.2010         Bank Return Memo

 

Ex.A7 dated 09.04.2010         Complainant letter to the opposite party

 

Ex.A8 dated 06.01.2012         Legal Notice

 

Ex.A9 dated 11.01.2012         Acknowledgement card

                                               

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE   OPPOSITE PARTY:

 

Ex.B1 dated NIL                     Loan Application Form

 

Ex.B2 dated NIL                     Statement of Accounts

 

Ex.B3 dated NIL                     Cheque bearing No.839001 dated 13.06.2012 for a

                                                 sum of Rs.3,100/- in favour of the complainant

 

 

MEMBER – I                                                               PRESIDENT