Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/23/263

UmeshSood - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC Bank Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Jishu Dhir

07 Jul 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 263 dated 05.07.2023.                                                       Date of decision: 07.07.2023

 

Umesh Sood Aged about 43 years son of Sh. Narinder Mohan, Resident of H. No.399, Near Malhotra Resorts, Eldeco Estate One, Ludhiana. Mob. 9988433221

                                                                                       ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

1. HDFC Bank Limtied (Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited) situated at Feroz Gandhi Market, Second Floor, Master Trust Building, SCO-19, Opposite Ludhiana Stock Exchange, Feroz Gandhi Market, Ludhiana-141001 through its GM/DGM/Authorized Signatory.
2. HDFC Bank Limited, Regd. Office: Ramon House, H T Parekh Marg, 169, Backbay Reclamation, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020, through its GM.DGM/Authorized Signatory.

…..Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 36 of The Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant            :         Sh. Jishu Dhir, Advocate

 

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

1.                The complainant has invoked the jurisdiction of this Commission by raising a consumer dispute by filing the present complaint with regard to the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties for charging the excessive amount as prepayment charges of home loan availed by the complainant. As per the facts mentioned in the complainant, in January 2018, the complainant took Plot plus construction loan amount of Rs.52,00,000/- from the opposite parties by mortgaging original sale deed and executed some documents incorporating all the terms and conditions settled between the complainant and opposite parties vide loan account No.629854397. As per agreement, the opposite parties will have to charge the Retail Prime Lending Rate (RPLR) @ 8.7% over the said loan amount of Rs.52,00,000/- to be returned in 240 EMIs of Rs.45,788/- each per month which the complainant was paying regularly. As per the complainant, the opposite parties have charged some prepayment charges of Rs.1,56,897/- (Rs.131,758/- with simple interest of Rs.25,139/-)  without any prior information or notice, but on asking by the complainant, the opposite parties could not give satisfactory reply which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. On 07.03.2020, the complainant sent a legal notice to the opposite parties through his counsel Sh. Jishu Dhir, Advocate to adjust/return the excess amount received by the opposite parties and also to pay compensation but to no effect. Hence this complaint whereby the complainant has prayed for issuance of directions to the opposite parties to adjust/return the excess amount received by the from the both loan accounts of the complainant. Further, the complainant has prayed issuance of direction to the opposite parties to pay Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation on account of mental harassment suffered by the complainant due to deficiency in services on the part of the opposite parties along with litigation expenses of Rs.25,000/- and Rs.15,000/-. The complaint is supported with affidavits of the complainant along with the annexed documents. 

2.                We have heard the counsel for the complainant on the point of admissibility of the complaint and gone through the record.

3.                Counsel for the complainant has reiterated the version of the complaint in his arguments and further prayed for admission of the complaint at the preliminary stage.

4.                 Perusal of notice dated 20.02.2020 (Ex. C7) reveals that prepayment charges (incl. taxes) Rs.1,31,758/- along with simple interest of 19 days Rs.25,139/-, total Rs.1,56,897/- were levied on or before 20.02.2020 which gave cause of action to the complainant to file the complaint. It is the settled law that once the cause of action begins to run it never stops. Certainly cause of action is not recurring in the present case. Section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 provides as under:-

“Limitation Period:- (1)The District Commission, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.

2)Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section(1), if the complainant satisfies the District Commission, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period;

Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the District Commission or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay.”

5.                Perusal of the complaint and annexed documents also shows that the complainant had earlier filed a Consumer Complaint No.251 of 2020 before this Commission which was dismissed at limine stage with a liberty to file a fresh complaint on 04.10.2021. The operative part of the order dated 04.10.2021 is reproduced as under:-

“After going through the record and hearing the counsel for the OPs, it transpires that plot plus construction loan of Rs.52 lac was, in fact availed by the complainant from HDFC Limited and not from the OP bank i.e. HDFC Bank. In this regard a reference can be made to the approval letter Ex.C4 whereby HDFC Limited i.e. Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited has approved of the loan of Rs.52 lac in favour of the complainant. Surprisingly, HDFC Limited has not been impleaded as party in this case. The grievance, if any, is against HDFC Limited and not against the OP bank. Therefore, in our considered view, the complaint is liable to be dismissed against the OP bank as there is no contract between the complainant and OP bank.

As a result of the above discussion, this complaint is summarily dismissed. The complainant will, however, be at liberty to file a fresh complaint against HDFC Limited. File be indexed and consigned to record room.”

6.                In Bharmaputra Biochem Private Limited versus New India Assurance Company & another-2022(1)Apex Court Judgments-327(S.C.) whereby the Hon’ble Supreme Court has made the following observations:-

“The complaint cannot be returned unadjudicated with liberty to file fresh complaint. The complaint can be filed within the period of limitation. Once the period of limitation has expired, the appellant cannot file the second complaint.” 

7.                Further, in SBI versus M/s B.S. Agricultural Industries(I),(Civil Appeal No.2067 of 2022) decided on 20.03.2009, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has made the following observations:-

“(t)he expression, ‘shall not admit a complaint’ occurring in Section 24-A[now, S.69(1) in the new CP Act, 2019] is sort of a legislative command to the consumer forum to examine on its own whether the complaint has been filed within the limitation period prescribed there under.”

It has been further observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case that “(i)if the complaint is barred by time and yet, the consumer forum (Commission) decides the complaint on merits, the forum (Commission) would be committing an illegality and, therefore, the aggrieved party would be entitled to have such order set aside.”

8.                Consequently, the present complaint is time barred and we do not inclined to proceed with the same and hence the same is hereby dismissed summarily at the admission stage itself. Copies of order be supplied to the complainant free of costs as per rules.           File be indexed and consigned to record room, but after registering the same.

 

(Monika Bhagat)                        (Sanjeev Batra)                            Member                                          President         

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:07.07.2023.

Gobind Ram.

 

 

 

Umesh Sood Vs HDFC Bank Limited                           CC/23/263

Present:       Sh. Jishu Dhir, Advocate for complainant.

                  

                   Arguments of counsel for the complainants at the admission stage heard.

                   Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint is dismissed summarily at the admission stage itself. Copies of order be supplied to the complainant free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room, but after registering the same.

 

(Monika Bhagat)                        (Sanjeev Batra)                            Member                                          President         

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:07.07.2023.

Gobind Ram.