STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Dr. Joseph K. Masih, son of Late Sh. Kirpal Masih, resident of H.No. 49, Shivalik Vihar, Block – G, Nayagaon, Tehsil Kharar, District S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali.

……Appellant

V e r s u s

HDFC Bank, through its Manager (Over draft), Plot No. 28, Industrial Area-I, Chandigarh.

              ....Respondent

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:    JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT.

                   MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.

Argued by:  Sh.Sunil K. Dixit, Advocate for the appellant.

PER  JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT

1.             This appeal is directed against the order dated 21.11.2011, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant(now appellant).

2.             The facts, in brief are that, the complainant, was sanctioned an overdraft limit of Rs.94000/-, in the shape of car loan, by the Opposite Party(now respondent). Accordingly, current A/c No. 01078490000168, with Sector 8-C Branch, at Chandigarh, was opened, in the name of the complainant.  Two undated blank cheques of Punjab & Sind Bank, Sector 36, Chandigarh, were obtained from the complainant, by the Opposite Party. It was stated that the Opposite Party, promised to return these cheques, if not utilized, for opening the account. It was further stated that neither these cheques were utilized, nor returned to the complainant. The complainant, started operating the account and utilized the overdraft limit. On 9.8.2008, the complainant received a letter dated 28.07.2008, from the Opposite Party,  stating therein, that it had been decided to enhance the rate of interest from 18% P.A., as was agreed to by the complainant, when overdraft limit was sanctioned. As usual, the complainant deposited Rs.3500/-  in cash on 30.11.2009, and one local cheque for Rs.1768/- on 1.12.2009. Thereafter, he deposited Rs.4000/- on 2.12.2009, because one cheque for Rs.6694/-, for Equal Monthly Installment (hereinafter to be referred as EMI),  for the month of December, 2009, was to be presented on this day. It was further stated that to the utter surprise of the complainant, the EMI cheque was dishonoured, on account of insufficient funds. It was further stated that on 4.12.2009, the complainant, obtained mini-statement from the ATM and came to know, that his account was showing Rs.12,531/-,  as debit, in the account, instead of credit and cheque of Rs.6694/-, deposited towards EMI for the month of December, 2009,  was dishonoured. He visited the Opposite Party, when he was informed that the overdraft limit,  had been reduced by the Bank from 1st December, onwards. He was forced to deposit Rs.6694/-, on account of EMI, for the month of December 2009, on 11.12.2009, vide receipt No. 19587547. It was further stated that the Opposite Party, started demanding Rs.500/-, as late deposit charges. Thereafter, he received another letter dated 09.11.2009, from the Opposite Party,  stating therein, that the overdraft limit, had been reduced by 20% every year, as agreed to, by him and, as such, the said limit shall be Rs.76,800/-.  It was further stated that the Opposite Party, had debited Rs.500/-, to the account of the complainant, on 1.12.2009, as per the account statement, for the month of December, 2009 and, unilaterally, reduced the overdraft limit from Rs.94,000/- to Rs.76,000/-. It was further stated that the Opposite Party, started demanding through SMS, a sum of Rs.12,000/-, which was over-draft, as on 1.12.2009. Even, vide letter dated 9.1.2010, which was received by the complainant, on 18.1.2010, this amount was demanded. It was further stated that the Opposite Party, again demanded Rs.14276.73, from the complainant. It was further stated that the Opposite Party, demanded penalty, through its call offices towards dishonouring of cheque of Rs.6694/-, towards EMI for the month of December, 2009. It was further stated that the Opposite Party, vide another letter dated 05.02.2010,  asked the complainant, to deposit the entire amount of Rs.92,798.99, failing which, his car would be taken into possession and disposed of. It was further stated that the Opposite Party, wrote another letter dated 25.03.2010, which was received by the complainant, on 14.4.2010, stating therein, that he should get the overdraft limit, converted into personal loan, on or before 31.3.2010. It was further stated that the complainant was telephonically informed, about the withdrawal of overdraft limit from 30.4.2010, and was asked to either deposit the entire utilized amount, or outstanding amount would be got converted into personal loan. It was further stated that the Opposite Party, decreased the over draft limit, from Rs.76,800/- to Rs.67,000/- from 1.6.2010, without any notice, information or consent of the complainant. It was further stated that even the credit limit, which was available, had been adjusted, and utilized, by the Opposite Party. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts, of the Opposite Party, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed.

3.             The Opposite Party, put in appearance, and filed its written version, wherein the factual matrix of the case, was admitted. It was pleaded that the complainant had applied for, and obtained finance, from the Opposite Party,  under an overdraft account facility. The same was for a period of one year and the extension of the same, was at the sole discretion of the bank. The facility could be withdrawn by the bank, at any stage, or could be reduced. As per the terms and conditions of the facility, the amount available under the facility, would automatically get reduced by 20% every year, subject to the extension of the facility, by the Opposite Party. The complainant was well aware of the fact, that the rate of interest was dynamic and he continued to utilize the said amount. Vide communication dated 9.11.2009, the complainant was made aware of the fact, that the available amount, under the facility, had been reduced by 20%, in terms of the agreement and the same was duly accepted by the complainant. It was stated that, in case, the complainant was neither interested in the extension of the facility, nor was satisfied with the same, he could, opt for the closure of the account, which he did not do. It was further stated that, vide communication dated 9.1.2010, the complainant was informed, that the account was in arrears, and he was requested to deposit the defaulted amount, to make the account regular, but he did not deposit the said amount, and, thus, the Opposite Party, was constrained to issue notice dated 5.2.2010, recalling the full amount of facility, as the account was in default. It was further stated that inspite of the issuance of the said notice, the complainant did not deposit the said amount. It was further stated that again vide communication dated 11.2.2010, the complainant was intimated  that the said facility had been discontinued, and against the applicable rate of interest @ 22.5%, the complainant was offered  conversion into Equal Monthly Installment (EMI) based product, wherein, the applicable rate of interest was only 11.5% P.A, (monthly reducing). It was further stated that the complainant, did not choose the said option, with a reduced rate of interest. It was further stated that the said offer was again reiterated to the complainant, vide communication dated 25.3.2010. Again, the complainant, did not exercise the said option. It was further stated that it was informed vide the said communication, that, in case, the complainant, did not exercise the option to convert the facility, into an EMI based product, then the same would be charged, at the rate of interest of 30% per annum. It was further stated that vide this communication, it was also clearly intimated to the complainant that, in such a case, the facility available, would be reduced by 8%, every month. It was further stated that still the complainant, did not choose to exercise the option of the reduced rate of interest. It was further stated that consequently, the facility amount continued to be reduced by 8%, every month. It was further stated that the complainant was also liable to pay overdue and late payment charges. It was further stated, that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Party, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

4.             The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.

5.             After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, came to the conclusion that the facility was to get reduced, to the extent of 20% every year, as agreed to, between the parties, vide an agreement Annexure C-2. It was further held, by the District Forum, that from time to time, the complainant was informed, by the Opposite Party, with regard to the reduction in the limit, as per the agreement, as also increase in the rate of interest, to which he agreed. Ultimately, the District Forum, came to the conclusion, that there was no deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Party, and, thus, dismissed the complaint, filed by the complainant.

6.             Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/complainant.

7.             We have heard the Counsel for the appellant, and, have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 

8.             The Counsel for the appellant, submitted that the Opposite Party, arbitrarily reduced the limit, to the extent of 20% every year, without the consent of the complainant. He further submitted, that even, if this limit was to be reduced every year, it could only be reduced, by the first week of December and not before that, but to the utter surprise of the Opposite Party, the same was reduced in the month of June, 2009, without giving any notice, to the complainant. He further submitted that even, the rate of interest was changed by the Opposite Party, arbitrarily, without the consent of the complainant. He further submitted that the terms and conditions of the facility were never supplied to the complainant. He further submitted that by arbitrarily changing the date of reduction of facility, every year, and the rate of interest, there was a clear-cut deficiency, in service, on the part of the Opposite Party, but the District Forum, fell into a grave error, in holding otherwise. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being illegal and invalid, is liable to be set aside.

9.             After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the appellant,  and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, at the preliminary stage, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. There is, no dispute, about the factum, that the complainant, obtained overdraft limit of Rs.94000/-, in the shape of car loan, from the Opposite Party.  It is also not disputed, that the current account was opened in the name of the complainant, through which he was enjoying the overdraft facility, granted to him, by the Opposite Party. It is a matter of common knowledge, that at the time of grant of any facility, the necessary formalities are completed, by the customer, by executing a number of documents.  Annexure C-2, is the letter dated 09.11.2009, written by the Opposite Party, to the complainant, vide which, he was informed, that his Car Plus facility, was due for renewal on 30.11.2009 and was being renewed for a further period of 12 months, till 30.11.2010. It was further intimated, vide this letter, that as per the terms and conditions of the agreement, signed by the complainant, the limit would get reduced by 20% every year and his new limit stood at Rs.76800/-, with effect from 01.12.2009. In para no. 2 of the complaint, the complainant, in clear-cut terms admitted, that after completing all the formalities, the Opposite Party, sanctioned the overdraft limit of Rs.94,000/-, and current account no. 01078490000168, was opened in his name, in its Sector 8C Branch, at Chandigarh. In the complaint, it was, nowhere, stated by the complainant, that he did not execute such an agreement, the mention whereof, is made in the letter Annexure C-2 dated 09.11.2009. Since the reduction of limit of 20%, every year, was agreed to, by the complainant, and intimated to him, vide letter Annexure C-2, he could not raise any grouse, with regard to the same. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, to the effect, that the facility aforesaid, was reduced to 20%, from June 2009, therefore, being without substance, must fail and the same stands rejected.

10.           Annexure C-1, is the letter, which clearly states, that as per the knowledge of the complainant, the rate of interest, which was chargeable, on the car overdraft facility, granted to him, was dynamic and it was to be realigned with the market, from time to time. It was further intimated, vide this letter, that with effect from September 01, 2008, the rate of interest on the aforesaid overdraft facility, would be revised to existing rate + 3%. It was further intimated, vide this letter, that the existing interest rate charged from the complainant was 19.50% P.A. It was also intimated, that all other terms and conditions of the facility would continue, as earlier. Thus, the, interest, which was to be charged on the overdraft facility, granted to the complainant, was dynamic, meaning thereby, that it was to change, as per the market conditions. Vide letter at page 63, dated 11.02.2010, it was intimated to the complainant, that the interest applicable on the said account was 22.5% per annum. He was also given an alternative option of conversion of his existing car overdraft facility, into an EMI based product, at a highly reduced interest rate of 11.50% (monthly reducing). The complainant, however, did not choose the alternative option, which was offered to him. Similarly, vide Annexure C-5, letter dated 25.03.2010, written to the complainant, he was intimated, that interest would be charged at 30% per annum.. In case, these terms and conditions were not acceptable to the complainant, he could have very well refused to accept the same, at the time of obtaining the car overdraft facility, but he did not do so. He continued availing of the facility, as per the terms and conditions, agreed to between the parties, but later on, tried to wriggle out of the same. Under these circumstances, the submission of the Counsel for the appellant, to the effect, that the rate of interest was changed by the Opposite Party, arbitrarily, and without giving any notice to the complainant, being without substance, must fail, and the same stands rejected.

11.           The amount, which became overdue, in the account of the complainant, with regard to the facility enjoyed by him, was not paid by him. A number of letters were written to him, that the amount was due and he should pay the same, but he did not bother. In letter dated 25.03.2010, Annexure C-5, the amount, which was due against the complainant, was intimated to him, as per Annexure C-6, copy of the statement of account.  Under these circumstances, it could not be said, that the Opposite Party, acted against the terms and conditions of the agreement, which were signed by the complainant, in its favour, as also contrary to the terms and conditions, contained in the letters, referred to above. The District Forum, was, thus right, in holding, that the Opposite Party was neither deficient, in rendering service, nor indulged into unfair trade practice. The findings of the District Forum, in this regard, being correct, are affirmed.

12.           No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the appellant.

13.           The order, passed by the District Forum, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.

14.           For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.

15.           Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

16.           The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion

Pronounced.

January 23, 2012

Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

[NEENA SANDHU]

MEMBER

Rg