DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (CENTRAL)ISBT KASHMERE GATE DELHI
CC/21/2016
No. DF/ Central/
Dr. P.C. Rishi
S/o Late O.P. Rishi
R/o 169 Anupam Apartment,
Saket, New Delhi - 110017
…..COMPLAINANT
VERSUS
HDFC Bank Ltd.,
Through Branch Manager
2nd Floor, Express Building,
Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg,
Delhi – 110002
AND
Reg Off: HDFC Bank House
Senapati Bapat Marg,
Lower Parel (West), Mumbai - 400013
…..OPPOSITE PARTY
Coram : Ms. Rekha Rani, President
Mrs. Manju Bala Sharma, Member
Shri R.C. Meena, Member
ORDER
Rekha Rani, President
- Dr. P.C. Rishi (in short the complainant) filed the instant complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended up to date (in short the Act) pleading therein that he availed a personal loan of Rs. 7,00,000/- from HDFC Bank Ltd. (in short OP) in July 2003. The said loan was foreclosed and an amount of Rs. 5,57,000/- was deposited with the Bank on 25/11/2004 as full and final one
time settlement vide cheque no. 823377.The OP who have taken Post Dated
Cheques from the complainant towards amount of EMI’s kept on depositing the said post dated cheques ever after the receipt of full and final one time settlement amount of Rs. 5,57,000/- on 25/11/2004.Two post dated cheques no. 773086 and 773096 amounting to Rs. 38,262/- were got encashed by OP.Accordingly complainant approached District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Central New Delhi by filing complaint bearing no. 130/2007.The said complaint was allowed vide order dated 22/07/2008 whereby the OP Bank was directed to refund Rs. 38,262/- to the complainant, Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation and Rs. 20,000/- as cost of litigation.
OP Bank challenged the said order by filing an appeal before the State
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in FA No. 926/2008 which was dismissed vide order dated 08/09/2009. During the pendency of the said appeal complainant had filed an Execution Petition before Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum – VI, K.G. Marg, New Delhi bearing no. Ex P No. 352/2009.
OP challenged the order of the State Commission dated 08/09/2009 before National Commission in R P No.1565/2010 which was dismissed vide order dated 12/10/2010. After dismissal of its revision petition OP complied with the order and paid Rs. 2,58,262/- to the complainant in execution proceedings i.e. Ex No. 352/2009.
Even after compliance of the order of National Commission OP initiated proceedings before Delhi Govt. Mediation and Conciliation Centre against the
complainant. Complainant received notice dated 04/12/2015 of the said proceedings. After receipt of the notice from Delhi Govt. Mediation and Conciliation Centre complainant served legal notice dated 18/12/2015 to the OP. Complainant visited Delhi Govt. Mediation and Conciliation Centre on 21/12/2015 and was surprised to note that the bank officials were not apologetic in correcting their mistake but were insistent on recovering the alleged amount of Rs. 1,84,171/-.
Hence the instant complaint seeking direction to OP bank to pay an amount of Rs. 18,50,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for causing him mental agony and harassment, Rs. 25,000/- as cost and also to restrain the OP from making any demands in respect of loan account no. 297692/-
2. OP filed written statement and pleaded that complainant availed personal loan vide loan account no. 297692 in July 2003. Complainant unilaterally decided the foreclosure amount and paid an amount of Rs. 5,57,000/- to the OP Bank on 25.11.2004 as per his own imaginary calculation and rate of foreclosure charges. Accordingly OP Bank further presented two more EMI cheques amounting to Rs. 38262/-.
Against the above action of the OP complainant filed complaint with District forum K.G. Marg, New Delhi being CC No. 130/2007 which was allowed vide order dated
22/07/2008. OP was restrained from making any further demand from the complainant on account of the above said loan account and was directed to refund to
the complainant a sum of Rs. 38262/- along with a compensation of Rs. 2 Lakhs and litigation cost of Rs. 20,000/-. It is submitted that State Commission dismissed the appeal of the OP vide order dated 08/09/2009 and it was also admitted that the National Commission also dismissed their appeal vide order dated 12/10/2010. It is further admitted by OP that after dismissal of their revision Petition by the National
Commission they complied with the above said order dated 22/07/2008 and paid a sum of Rs. 258262/- to the complainant vide cheque/ DD No. 535152 dated 18.03.2011 in execution proceedings bearing no. 352/2009.
Further it is stated that Mr. Raj Kumar Anand who was then an employee of the OP Bank, who was looking after the loan file/matter of the complainant, got shifted to another division and therefore despite order dated 22/07/2008 having been fully complied with by the OP Bank due to an inadvertent human error/mistake the said fact had escaped entry/ updation in the above said loan account and the same was still showing an outstanding balance in pursuance of which the matter was referred for amicable settlement to Mediation Centre, Delhi Disputes Resolution Society for which the complainant had received notice dated 04/12/2015.
Further it is stated that when OP came to know about the said error/mistake it apologized to the complainant before the Mediation Centre on 21/12/2015 for the
inconvenience caused to him and had immediately rectified the error /mistake and zerorised in the said loan account on 13/01/2016 i.e. before filing of the present complaint by the complainant.
Further it is stated that the complainant threatened the OP that last time he could only get Rs. 220000/- from the OP and now he would not leave the Bank for anything less than Rs. 15 Lakhs. It is stated that the present complaint has been filed to extort money from the OP.
3. The facts which are not in dispute are that District Forum, KG Marg New Delhi allowed the complaint of the complainant bearing no. 130/2007 vide its order dated 22/07/2008.
It is not in dispute that appeal of the OP bearing No. A-2008/926 was dismissed by State Commission Delhi vide its order dated 08/09/2009. It is also not in dispute that OP went to National Commission by way of Revision Petition bearing no. 1565/2010 which was also dismissed vide order dated 12.10.2010.
It is further not in dispute that OP made the payment as per order of District Forum in execution proceedings initiated by the complainant. It is also not in dispute that despite having made full and final payment to the complainant as per order of the District Forum OP initiated proceedings before Delhi Mediation Centre.
It is not in dispute that on receipt of notice from Delhi Mediation Centre complainant served legal notice to OP vide his letter dated 18/12/2015 and OP resisted
the same vide their letter dated 04/12/2016.
OP has taken an objection to territorial jurisdiction of this forum in its written statement.
It is true that complainant filed his complaint initially before District Consumer Redressal forum New Delhi. Even execution proceedings were filed before the same forum. Therefore, apparently, he ought to have filed this complaint before District Forum New Delhi. It is pertinent to note that he served legal notice dated 18/12/2015 to OP Bank at its Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg which is in our territorial jurisdiction. OP sent reply to the said legal notice to the complainant vide their letter dated 04.02.2016 (EX CW 1/6). OP did not object to territorial jurisdiction of this forum in the said reply and it is specifically pleaded that the reply is on behalf of OP Bank situated at Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi (which is in our jurisdiction) and the claim was resisted on merits. Therefore we proceed to adjudicate the matter on merits.
4. Having complied with order of District Forum New Delhi as affirmed by National Commission in Revision Petition OP could not and should not have proceeded further particularly and specifically in view of the fact that vide order dated 22/07/2008 of District Forum, New Delhi, OP was not only directed to pay an amount of Rs. 2 Lac as compensation, Rs. 20,000/- as cost of litigation and refund of Rs. 38262/- but was
also restrained from making any demand in respect of loan account of the complainant.
Not bothered about the said order OP proceeded to initiate proceedings before Delhi Mediation against the complainant
5. The defence of the OP is that it occurred on account of ‘‘human error’’ as Mr. Raj Kumar Anand who was looking after the loan account file of the complainant was shifted to another division of the bank is baseless. The plea is taken merely with a view to cover up its negligence.
This is proved from the fact that on receipt of notice from the Delhi Mediation Centre complainant served legal notice dated 18/12/2015 to OP Bank. OP Bank instead of apologizing to the complainant resisted the claim and stated that ‘‘question of any settlement before the mediation and conciliation centre does not arise.’’
This naturally led the complainant to file instant complaint for vindication of his grievance. Initiating proceedings before Delhi Mediation Centre by the OP against the complainant caused unnecessary harassment to the complainant. OP did not apologise to the complainant even in their reply to his legal notice as referred above.
The complaint is accordingly allowed. OP is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation to the complainant for causing him mental agony and harassment. The same be paid within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which it shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the said date till the date of payment. Copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to record room.
Announced this 17th day of January 2020.
