Haryana

Sirsa

CC/23/333

Gulab Jain - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Complainant/

09 Feb 2024

ORDER

Heading1
Heading2
 
Complaint Case No. CC/23/333
( Date of Filing : 28 Aug 2023 )
 
1. Gulab Jain
Resident of Noharia Bazar Sirsa
Sirsa
Haryana
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. HDFC Bank
Near Sagwan Chowk Sirsa
Sirsa
Haryana
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
  Padam Singh Thakur PRESIDENT
  Sukhdeep Kaur MEMBER
  O.P Tuteja MEMBER
 
PRESENT:Complainant/, Advocate for the Complainant 1
 
Dated : 09 Feb 2024
Final Order / Judgement

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.              

 

                                                          Consumer Complaint no. 333 of 2023.                                                                    

                                                             Date of Institution :    28.08.2023

                                                          Date of Decision   :    09.02.2024

 

Gulab Jain son of Sh. Dan Mal, resident of Noharia Bazar Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.

 

                      ……Complainant.

                             Versus.

H.D.F.C. Bank Near LIC Building, Sangwan Chowk Sirsa, through its Manager/ Auth. Person.

                                                              ..…Opposite party.

         

            Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

BEFORE:  SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR ………………PRESIDENT                                   

                     MRS.SUKHDEEP KAUR………………………MEMBER.

                    SH. OM PARKASH TUTEJA …………………MEMBER

Present:       Complainant in person.

Opposite party already exparte.

 

 

ORDER:-

 

                   The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite party (hereinafter referred as OP).

2.       The case of the complainant, in brief, is that in the month of February, 2022 the complainant had taken loan of Rs.9,00,000/- from the op bank which was to be returned in 180 installments of Rs.8115/- per month each. The first installment was to be paid on 01.03.2022. That after two/ three months the complainant arranged the money, hence he visited to the op bank and asked to return the loan amount but the op bank advised that if the complainant repays the loan at present then the op bank will charge Rs.50,000/- but if the complainant pays the same after one year then this amount will not be taken from him and Manager of op bank advised to pay the loan in installment for one year. That Manager also advised that then he can repay the whole loan amount to the bank and no charges will be taken from him. It is further averred that thereafter complainant started to repay the loan amount in installment every month and had paid 17 installments with the op bank. That after seventeen months, the complainant again visited to the op and requested to get deposited all the remaining loan amount but the op bank forced the complainant to deposit further repayment charges of Rs.20,469/-. That when complainant asked the op that they had assured that after one year no amount as prepayment charges will be charged from him but now after 17 months they are forcing to deposit the above said prepayment charges of Rs.20,469/- which is also against law and bank rules but the op bank did not listen the complainant and threatened that if the complainant will not pay the above said amount of Rs.20,469/- then they will not deposit the remaining loan amount. It is further averred that under the pressure and compelled circumstances the complainant deposited the same with the op bank. In this way the op bank is negligent and deficient in its services and has received extra amount by pressuring, harassing and humiliating the complainant for which complainant is also entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs. one lac from op bank. Hence, this complaint seeking direction to the op bank to return the above said amount of Rs.20,469/- and also to pay above said amount of compensation as well as litigation expenses.

3.       Notice of the complainant was issued to the opposite party but despite delivery of notice none appeared on behalf of op. Hence, op was proceeded against exparte.

4.       The complainant in exparte evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex. CW1/A and prepayment document/ receipt Ex.C1.

5.       We have heard complainant and have gone through the case file.

6.       The complainant in order to prove his complaint has furnished his affidavit Ex. CW1/A in which he has reiterated all the contents of his complaint. The complainant has also placed on file prepayment receipt Ex.C1 dated 05.08.2023 issued by the op bank vide which besides principal prepayment of Rs.8,67,304/-, the op bank also charged prepayment charges of Rs.20,469/- from the complainant. The complainant wanted to deposit the entire loan amount after two/ three months of disbursement of loan amount but op bank asked him to deposit the loan amount after one year and also assured him that in case he deposits the loan amount after one year, no prepayment charges will be charged from him by the op bank and as such complainant was paying the loan amount in installments and he paid 17 installments thereafter to the op bank. It is proved on record that even after seventeen months i.e. on 05.08.2023 when complainant deposited prepayment of Rs.8,67,304/- to the op bank then also op bank charged prepayment charges of Rs.20,469/- from complainant despite above said assurances given by op bank that they will not charge any extra amount in lieu of prepayment charges from complainant if he deposits the loan amount after one year. As such it is proved on record that op bank is deficient in service and has adopted unfair trade practice towards the complainant despite above said assurances given by op bank to the complainant. There is nothing on file to prove that op bank can charge prepayment charges if complainant deposits the loan amount after one year or seventeen months. Even the op bank did not appear before this Commission despite notice and opted to be proceeded against exparte. So the pleadings as well as evidence of complainant remained unrebutted and unchallenged. The complainant is entitled to refund of the above said amount of Rs.20,469/- illegally charged by op bank from complainant and he is also entitled to compensation for harassment.

7.       In view of our above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite party to make refund of the above said amount of Rs.20,469/- to the complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which complainant will be entitled to receive above said amount of Rs.20,469/- from op bank alongwith interest at the rate of @6% per annum from the date of this order till actual realization. We also direct the op bank to further pay composite compensation of Rs.10,000/- including litigation expenses to the complainant for harassment etc. within above said stipulated period. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.  

 

 

Announced.                             Member      Member                President                   

  Dt. 09.02.2024.                                                          District Consumer Disputes                                                                                                              Redressal Commission, Sirsa  

 
 
[ Padam Singh Thakur]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[ Sukhdeep Kaur]
MEMBER
 
 
[ O.P Tuteja]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.