Punjab

StateCommission

FA/12/194

Kuldeep Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Hitesh Sood

16 Mar 2015

ORDER

2^nd Additional Bench

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB

DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH

 

First Appeal No. 194 of 2012

                                                           

                                    Date of institution: 17.2.2012    

                             Date of Decision:  16.3.2015

 

Kuldeep Singh s/o Sh. Amar Singh r/o Street No. 1, Extension No. 1, Gautam Nagar, Una Road, Hoshiarpur at present residing at New Sikh Line, Opposite BSNL Officer Colony, Hoshiarpur, District Hoshiarpur.

…..Appellant/Complainant

                                      Versus

1. HDFC Bank, SCO 1, 2,3, Near Improvement Trust Office, Hoshiarpur through its Manager.
2. The Manager, HDFC Bank, Card Division, PO Box 8654, Thiruvanmivur, Chennai-60004.

…..Respondents/Ops.

 

First Appeal against the order dated 9.12.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hoshiarpur.

 

Quorum:-

 

              Shri Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member

              Shri Jasbir Singh Gill, Member

    Shri Harcharan Singh Guram, Member

 

Present:-

 

          For the appellant             :         Sh. Hitesh Sood, Advocate

          For the respondents        :         Sh. Sandeep Suri, Advocate

 

 

 

Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member

ORDER

The appellant/complainant (hereinafter referred as “the complainant”) has filed the present appeal against the order dated 9.12.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hoshiarpur (hereinafter referred as “the District Forum”) in consumer complaint No.325 dated 22.12.2010 vide which the complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed.  

2.                The complaint was filed by the complainant under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short ‘the Act’) against the respondents/opposite parties(hereinafter referred as ‘the OPs’)  on the allegations that he had his Saving Bank A/c No. 02291000018520 and was a preferred customer. He was issued credit card bearing No. 5176521005155579 in August, 2007 and credit card of Rs. 82,500/- was given but he never operated the credit card and his credit card was updated on 28.5.2009. However, on 7.5.2008, the complainant received a telephonic call on his mobile from the Ops in which he was offered a loan of Rs. 54,800/-. However, the complainant was not interested to obtain any loan but Executive of the Op told that he being a preferred customer, the Ops are going to give a loan of Rs. 54,800/- on interest @ 1½ per annum against the credit card and accordingly, he gave the consent of a loan of Rs. 54,800/-, which was transferred to his S.B. Account on 8.5.2008. When he discussed, this preposition with his colleagues they advised him to enquire from the Ops because on this rate of interest, the loan is not possible. When he approached the Ops, they intimated that the rate of interest was not 1½ per annum but it was 1½% per mensum and told the complainant that they had mis-sold the loan to the complainant and to get back the amount of loan from his account. As he was not interested to take the loan at the rate of interest 1½ per month and accordingly, the amount of Rs. 54,800/- was transferred from the account of the complainant to the account of the Ops. However, the complainant did not receive any letter from the Ops issued on 15.7.2008 to 3.10.2010 then customer care gave a call to know that he has to pay Rs. 6,619.24p to the Ops. Then he again approached to the Ops and came to know that his loan was closed on 30.10.2010 and a sum of Rs. 20,900/- is outstanding against him. No intimation was given to the complainant, which amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the Ops. Hence, the complaint with the prayer that the demand of Rs. 20,900/- of the Ops be quashed and Rs. 10,000/- be paid as litigation expenses.

3.                The complaint was contested by the Ops, who filed written reply taking preliminary objections that the complaint was liable to be dismissed as the complainant had not Come to the Forum with clean hands. True facts are that from the very beginning, the credit card of the complainant was running irregularly. He defaulted many time and did not adhere to the financial discipline. The complainant had never made full payment in that account, therefore, it was not closed. On merits also, it was admitted that the complainant had a saving bank account and he was issued a credit card bearing No. 5176521005155579, which was lateron upgraded. It was denied that the complainant was not interested to obtain any loan. He did not approach to the customer care to know the services of loan. Complainant when refunded a sum of Rs. 54,800/- did not pay the full amount and amount continued. Ultimately, it was submitted that the complaint was without merit and it be dismissed.

4.                The parties were allowed by the learned District Forum to lead their evidence.

5.                In support of his allegations, the complainant had tendered into evidence bank statement Ex. C-1, letter dt. 3.10.10 Mark C-2, duplicate statements Exs. C-3 to C-33 & 35 and his affidavit Ex. C-34,  passbook Ex. C-36 and affidavit of Amit Pal Singh Ex. CW-2/A. On the other hand, the opposite party had tendered into evidence affidavit of Lalit Sharma Ex. RW-1/A, power of attorney Ex. R-2, credit card statement Ex. R-3.

6.                After going through the allegations in the complaint, written reply filed by the OPs, evidence and documents brought on the record, the complaint was dismissed.

7.                In the appeal, it has been contended by the appellant that on 7.5.2008 a telephonic message was received from the Ops vide which they had offered a loan of Rs. 54,800/- @ 1.5%  per annum on the credit card of the appellant and on 8.5.2008, that amount was transferred to the account of the complainant. But lateron he came to know that they had charged the interest @ 1.5% per month, accordingly, he asked the Ops to close his loan account and a sum of Rs. 54,800/- was paid on 15.7.2008 through cheque. But in the month of November 2008, he came to know that still a sum of Rs. 20,900/- is outstanding against the complainant. These facts were not properly considered by the learned District Forum.

8.                The perusal of the pleading and evidence on the record shows that there is no written agreement between the parties. However, it is also not believable that the bank will extend loan facility of Rs. 54,800/- to the complainant @ 1.5 per annum and that too against the credit card. Whereas the claim of the Ops is that this facility was extended @ 1.5% per month, which comes to 18% per annum, therefore, this rate of interest is reasonable. Therefore, we do not agree with the plea raised by the counsel for the complainant that he was given loan facility of Rs. 54,800/- by the Ops on interest @ 1.5% per annum.

9.                It was further contended by the counsel for the complainant that when there was no written terms and conditions between the parties, therefore, the Ops did not have any right then to split the amount in instalments and accordingly, to charge the interest, whereas the documents Exs. C-5 to C-33 shows that the amount has been split into instalments despite the fact that the original amount of Rs. 54,800/- was returned as on 15.7.2008. However, certainly some interest will accrue on the amount of Rs. 54,800/-, which was availed by the complainant from the Ops on 8.5.2008 to 15.7.2008 but that interest amount has not been paid by the complainant to the Ops as is clear from the statement of account of the S.B. Account No. 02291000018520, which only shows that a sum of Rs. 54,800/- was transferred from this account to the account of the Ops. However, during the course of arguments, the counsel for the Op was unable to explain how a sum of Rs. 20,900/- had accrued on the loan amount of the complainant within a period of 2 months 7 days. Therefore, the findings of the learned District Forum to totally dismiss the complaint are not justified, which are required to be modified.

10.              In view of the position explained above, the appeal filed by the appellant is partly accepted. The impugned order of the District Forum is set-aside. The complaint of the complainant is partly allowed with a direction to the Ops to calculate the interest @ 18% p.a. on a sum of Rs. 54,800/- from 8.5.2008 to 15.7.2008 and only that amount will be entitlement of the Ops and not a sum of Rs. 20,900/- as demanded by them. Further the amount of interest so calculated as on 8.5.2008 will carry interest @ 9% p.a. from 8.5.2008 to the date of payment.  No order as to costs of the appeal.

11.              The arguments in this appeal were heard on 10.3.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.

12.              The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.

 

 (Gurcharan Singh Saran)

Presiding Judicial Member

 

                                                                            (Jasbir Singh Gill)

                                                                                                    Member

 

March 16, 2015.                                                      (Harcharan Singh Guram)

as                                                                                                Member