DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

====

          Sushil Kumar son of Sh.Har Bhagwan Dass, resident of 675/6, Shastri Nagar, Kurukshetra, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra.

                                                                   …..Complainant

                                      V E R S U S

          1.       HDFC Bank Ltd., SCO No.78/79, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh, through its Manager.

          2.       HDFC Bank Ltd., Kalawati Market, Railway Road, Kurukshetra, through its Manager.

……Opposite Parties

CORAM:     SH.P.D.GOEL                                            PRESIDENT

                   SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL                            MEMBER

DR.(MRS.) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA          MEMBER

Argued by:    Sh.Kamal Kant Verma, Counsel for the complainant.

                        Sh.Sandeep Suir, Counsel for OPs.          

PER DR.(MRS.) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA, MEMBER

                Briefly stated, the complainant, in the month of March, 2003, took loan of Rs.8,30,000/- each for two trucks bearing Regd. No.HR-65-0855 and HR-65A-0855 from the OPs bank vide loan Agreement No.226441 & 226537, which was to be repaid in 35 monthly installments of Rs.27,800/- each. The complainant paid regular installments of loans, but due to some financial loss, there was some irregularity of one or two installments.  However, the OPs on 8.4.2005, illegally & forcibly, without giving any notice, snatched & impounded the truck No.HR-65A-0855. Thereafter, the complainant deposited Rs.1,39,000/- on 9.4.2005 (Pages No.25 to 29), but the OPs did not release the truck and compelled him to deposit the amount of other truck concerning the defaulting installments.  He also deposited another sum of Rs.55,600/- on 13.4.2005 with the OPs, but even then, they illegally charged from him a sum of Rs.16,552/- (Page No.30).  It is averred that the truck was impounded on 8.4.2005 and the account was cleared on 9.4.2005, but even thereafter, the OPs did not release the truck; therefore, he suffered loss of Rs.12,000/- from 8.4.2005 to 13.4.2005.  It is also averred that the OPs also illegally charged an amount of Rs.16,960/- on 13.4.2005, as penal interest against loan account No.226537 (Page No.31).  It is asserted that the complainant cleared both the loans in February, 2006, but despite clearing the loan accounts and making several visits, the Bank neither issued the clearance certificate nor refunded the excess amount. The complainant filed complaint No.190/07 on the same facts as mentioned in this complaint, before the District Consumer Forum, Kurukshetra, which was decided on 24.5.2011, holding that this Forum at Chandigarh has jurisdiction to hear the dispute. Hence, this complaint.

2]             OPs filed joint reply and admitted that the complainant took a loan of Rs.8,30,000/- from each of them. It is stated that the vehicle has been surrendered by the complainant, as he was unable to pay the installments.  When he paid/cleared the whole loan amount, he took possession of the truck. The averment of the complainant has been denied that he had been regularly paying the installments of the Bank. In fact, the first cheque itself, in both the loan accounts, had been bounced and subsequently, the cheques were bounced on 19 different occasions. The OPs Bank received the installments very late, as such, they were entitled to charge overdue charges, interest, late payment interest and cheque bouncing charges. It has been contended that the complainant himself was a defaulter. It has been denied that an excess amount of Rs.32,002/- has been charged by the bank. The amount taken by the bank, were as per the agreement. It has been pleaded that when the complainant cleared the outstanding amount, the possession of the truck/vehicle was handed over to him. It has also been denied that the complainant paid several visits to get the NOC.  Rather, it has been asserted that the complainant was required to complete certain formalities i.e. to provide copy of the RC having hypothecation as well as his presence also, to issue the required NOC. Denying all the material allegations of the complainant and pleading that there has been no deficiency in service on their part and prayer for dismissal of the complaint with costs has been made.  

3]             Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4]             We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 

5]             The grouse of the complainant is that, although the entire installments were paid within the stipulated time period, yet the OP Bank, not only illegally & arbitrarily, snatched & impounded his trucks, without giving any notice, but also charged him with penal interest/charges of Rs.16,552/- against Loan Account No.226441 & Rs.16,960/- against Loan Account No.226537 (Page No.30 & 31), though there was no such agreement.  Besides this, the OPs also did not issue Clearance Certificates in respect to the said loan. 

6]             On the other hand, the OPs while admitting the factual matrix of the case, pleaded that the truck/vehicle was surrendered by the complainant, as he was unable to pay the installments and when he paid the installments, he took the possession of his truck/vehicle.  It is also pleaded that the complainant was defaulter in making regular and timely payments of the due installments, and therefore, he was charged with overdue charges, interest, late payment interest and cheque bouncing charges etc., for which the OP Bank was fully entitled.   It is contended that the complainant was required to complete certain formalities for issuance of NOC, which he did not do.

7]             The short order dated 03.01.2012 reveals that the ld.Counsel for the OPs had handed over the No Objection Certificate, along with Form 35 of both the loan accounts of the complainant, to the ld.Counsel of the Complainant.  A photocopy of the same has also been retained on record of this file.

8]             Now the dispute is only about charging of penal interest from the complainant. 

9]             The document placed on file by the OPs, as Statements of Account, which pertains to the complainant’s account of both loans, has focused our attention.  It clearly shows that the complainant himself was defaulter in making regular payment of the due installments to the Bank.  As there were irregularities in making payment of loan installments by the complainant, so, he was obviously liable to pay such overdue/penal charges etc.

10]           Moreover, the complainant has neither been able to establish any case in his favour nor proved any allegation of deficiency in service on the part of OPs, by leading cogent and plausible evidence/document.  The statements of account, which have been placed on record by the OPs along with their reply, in respect of both loans availed by the complainant, have also not been rebutted/controverted by the complainant. More so, as per the settled/basic law of Financial Institutions/Banks, the overdue charges, penal charges, late payment charges etc., have to be levied, in case of default in payment of installment, late payments or bouncing of cheques.  Therefore, the only document, to be relied upon, in order to come to the conclusion, is the complainant’s statement of account of both loans, which proved, beyond any doubt, that the complainant was a defaulter in making regular payment of the due installments.  Hence, in our opinion, the OPs have rightly charged penal charges from the complainant for the defaulted installments, as per statement of account, of the complainant.

11]           Judged from any angle, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the Complainant has miserably failed to prove his case, whereas the OPs have completely assailed & rebutted the allegations made by the Complainant against them, by producing relevant documents on record. Therefore, we find that there is no merit, weight or substance in the present complaint and it deserves dismissal. Hence, we dismiss the complaint. However, the respective parties shall bear their own costs.  

                Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.