HDFC Bank V/S mR. aBDUL HAKEEM AKBAR, - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Bangalore Urban

CC/08/2305

mR. aBDUL HAKEEM AKBAR, - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC Bank - Opp.Party(s)

NO 66/1, COLES ROAD, FRASER TOWN,B;LORE-560005

12 Nov 2008

ORDER

BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSLAL FORUM, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA STATE.
Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Cauvery Bhavan, 8th Floor, BWSSB Bldg., K. G. Rd., Bangalore-09.
consumer case(CC) No. CC/08/2305

mR. aBDUL HAKEEM AKBAR,						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
HDFC Bank						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

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.

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED: 25.10.2008 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN) 13th JANUARY 2009 PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER COMPLAINT NO. 2305/2008 COMPLAINANTS 1. Mr. Abdul Hakeem Akbar, S/o. E.M. Akbar, Aged about 33 years. 2. Mrs. Bilkhis Fatima, W/o. Mr. Abdul Hakeem Akbar, Aged about 28 years. Both are residing at No. 66/1, Coles Road Cross, Fraser Town, Bangalore 560 005. Advocate (Shakeel Ahmed) V/s. OPPOSITE PARTY The Manager (Loan Department), HDFC Bank, (Earlier Centurion Bank of Punjab Ltd., Since taken over HDFC Bank), C Wing, Ground Floor, Mittal Tower, M.G. Road, Bangalore 560 001. Advocate (B.S. Sudhir) O R D E R This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to accept the bankers cheque and charge the rate of interest only on outstanding principal amount, return the title deeds, post dated cheques and pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- on an allegations of deficiency in service. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under: Complainants availed a home loan of Rs.41,60,215/- on 11.08.2006 repayable in 120 EMI at the rate of Rs.54,978/- commencing from 05.09.2006. For the purpose of repayment of the said loan complainants issued the post dated cheques and also made provision to pay the said instalments through ECS. As the complainants were expecting some lump sum amount they thought of pre-closer of the said loan. While sanctioning the said loan OP promised that no pre-closer charges will be collected. The said fact is also noted in facility agreement, that too in frequently asked questions. With all that when complainant expressed their willingness to pre-close of the amount OP arbitrarily charged 1.69% on the entire loan. The calculation has been arrived wrongly. Complainants with a sole intention to close the said loan issued a bankers cheque on 24.08.2008 for Rs.1,87,163.70. OP has not encashed the said cheque so far nor closed the account. The repeated requests and demands made by the complainant even by causing the legal notice, went in futile. OP failed to return the original title deeds and remaining post dated cheques. For no fault of the complainants, they are made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Under the circumstances they felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence they are advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly. 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP complainants executed the agreement agreeing to pay a pre-closure charges of 1.69% on the original loan amount. Now they are estopped from contending that they are liable to pay the pre-closure amount only on the remaining unpaid loan amount. It is a right lies with the OP to accept the offer of the complainant with regard to pre-closure. When complainants failed to pay the pre-closure charges and the total amount in due OP did not encash the said bankers cheque because it is issued to the lesser amount than actually payable. The other allegations of the complainants that OP presented the cheques inspite of collecting the said EMI through ECS is also false. If the complainants pay the outstanding dues OP is bound to return the so called title deeds and the post dated cheques. As no fault lies with the OP, they are not liable to pay any compensation. There is no deficiency in service of any kind on the part of the OP. The complaint is devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard. 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under: Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP? Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs now claimed? Point No. 3 :- To what Order? 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on: Point No.1:- In Negative Point No.2:- Negative Point No.3:- As per final Order. R E A S O N S 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainants availed a home loan of Rs.41,60,215/- on 11.08.2006 repayable in 120 EMI at the rate of Rs.54,978/- commencing from 05.09.2006. It is also not at dispute that as a collateral security for repayment of the said loan complainants have deposited certain title deeds and also issued the post dated cheques. It is also not in dispute that complainants agreed to repay the said EMI through ECS. Now the grievance of the complainants is that though they are ready to pre-close the said outstanding dues at a stretch OP arbitrarily, illegally demanding 1.69% of the interest on the whole loan amount though the outstanding dues being only Rs.1,87,163.70. At the time of sanction of the said loan OP promised that they are not going to charge any pre-closure charges and it is evident from the document namely the facility agreement, wherein frequently asked questions, answers were given, but still OP arbitrarily charged the pre-closure charges. Thus complainant felt the deficiency in service. 7. As against this it is specifically contended by the OP that the complainants are bound by the terms and conditions of the original agreement. Clause.7 of the said agreement which is duly signed by the complainants having understood the terms and conditions clearly discloses that pre-closure charges will be 1.69% of the original loan amount. Hence complainants are bound by the said terms and conditions, they are estopped from contending that they are liable to pay the pre-closure charges only to the extent of outstanding dues as on the date of the proposal. We find there is a substance in the defence of the OP. The said agreement is produced, to which the complainants are the parties. The contents of the said document are not at dispute. Of course complainants after calculating the said amount indue sent one banker cheque on 24.08.2008 for Rs.1,87,163.70. As the amount noted in the bankers cheque is less than what is actually due to the OP including the principal pre-closure charges, they have not encashed it. That act of the OP cannot be termed as deficiency in service. Merely because an offer is made by the complainant to pre-close the said loan is not the sole criteria to accept whatever the allegations made by the complainants are true. Parties to the documents are bound to follow the terms and conditions. 8. When the complainants are in due of certain amount including the pre-closure charges they are bound to pay the same. If they want to close the said loan account they have to perform their part of contract and obligation. If they failed to do so on some reasons they are the defaulters and they cannot allege the deficiency in service against the OP. The contention of the complainant that they are ready to pay the pre-closure charges at the rate of 1.69% only on the outstanding dues that is the principal amount Rs.1,87,163.70 rather does not hold force. 9. When complainants are in due of certain loan amount to OP, naturally OP is entitled to retain the said title deeds and post dated cheques till the dues are cleared. The options are still open to the complainants to make payment whatever the amount that is in due, get closed the account, then seek for return of the original title deeds and post dated cheques. When such an equally efficacious relief is readily available to the complainant, we do not think that their allegations made in the complaint are genuine. The complaint appears to be devoid of merits. There is no proof of deficiency in service. Hence the complainants are not entitled for the relief claimed. Accordingly we answer point nos.1 and 2 in negative and proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The complaint is dismissed. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs. (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 13th day of January 2009.) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT p.n.g.

COMPLAINT FILED: 25.10.2008 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN) 13th JANUARY 2009 PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER COMPLAINT NO. 2305/2008 COMPLAINANTS 1. Mr. Abdul Hakeem Akbar, S/o. E.M. Akbar, Aged about 33 years. 2. Mrs. Bilkhis Fatima, W/o. Mr. Abdul Hakeem Akbar, Aged about 28 years. Both are residing at No. 66/1, Coles Road Cross, Fraser Town, Bangalore 560 005. Advocate (Shakeel Ahmed) V/s. OPPOSITE PARTY The Manager (Loan Department), HDFC Bank, (Earlier Centurion Bank of Punjab Ltd., Since taken over HDFC Bank), C Wing, Ground Floor, Mittal Tower, M.G. Road, Bangalore 560 001. Advocate (B.S. Sudhir) O R D E R This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to accept the bankers cheque and charge the rate of interest only on outstanding principal amount, return the title deeds, post dated cheques and pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- on an allegations of deficiency in service. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under: Complainants availed a home loan of Rs.41,60,215/- on 11.08.2006 repayable in 120 EMI at the rate of Rs.54,978/- commencing from 05.09.2006. For the purpose of repayment of the said loan complainants issued the post dated cheques and also made provision to pay the said instalments through ECS. As the complainants were expecting some lump sum amount they thought of pre-closer of the said loan. While sanctioning the said loan OP promised that no pre-closer charges will be collected. The said fact is also noted in facility agreement, that too in frequently asked questions. With all that when complainant expressed their willingness to pre-close of the amount OP arbitrarily charged 1.69% on the entire loan. The calculation has been arrived wrongly. Complainants with a sole intention to close the said loan issued a bankers cheque on 24.08.2008 for Rs.1,87,163.70. OP has not encashed the said cheque so far nor closed the account. The repeated requests and demands made by the complainant even by causing the legal notice, went in futile. OP failed to return the original title deeds and remaining post dated cheques. For no fault of the complainants, they are made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Under the circumstances they felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence they are advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly. 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP complainants executed the agreement agreeing to pay a pre-closure charges of 1.69% on the original loan amount. Now they are estopped from contending that they are liable to pay the pre-closure amount only on the remaining unpaid loan amount. It is a right lies with the OP to accept the offer of the complainant with regard to pre-closure. When complainants failed to pay the pre-closure charges and the total amount in due OP did not encash the said bankers cheque because it is issued to the lesser amount than actually payable. The other allegations of the complainants that OP presented the cheques inspite of collecting the said EMI through ECS is also false. If the complainants pay the outstanding dues OP is bound to return the so called title deeds and the post dated cheques. As no fault lies with the OP, they are not liable to pay any compensation. There is no deficiency in service of any kind on the part of the OP. The complaint is devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard. 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under: Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP? Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs now claimed? Point No. 3 :- To what Order? 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on: Point No.1:- In Negative Point No.2:- Negative Point No.3:- As per final Order. R E A S O N S 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainants availed a home loan of Rs.41,60,215/- on 11.08.2006 repayable in 120 EMI at the rate of Rs.54,978/- commencing from 05.09.2006. It is also not at dispute that as a collateral security for repayment of the said loan complainants have deposited certain title deeds and also issued the post dated cheques. It is also not in dispute that complainants agreed to repay the said EMI through ECS. Now the grievance of the complainants is that though they are ready to pre-close the said outstanding dues at a stretch OP arbitrarily, illegally demanding 1.69% of the interest on the whole loan amount though the outstanding dues being only Rs.1,87,163.70. At the time of sanction of the said loan OP promised that they are not going to charge any pre-closure charges and it is evident from the document namely the facility agreement, wherein frequently asked questions, answers were given, but still OP arbitrarily charged the pre-closure charges. Thus complainant felt the deficiency in service. 7. As against this it is specifically contended by the OP that the complainants are bound by the terms and conditions of the original agreement. Clause.7 of the said agreement which is duly signed by the complainants having understood the terms and conditions clearly discloses that pre-closure charges will be 1.69% of the original loan amount. Hence complainants are bound by the said terms and conditions, they are estopped from contending that they are liable to pay the pre-closure charges only to the extent of outstanding dues as on the date of the proposal. We find there is a substance in the defence of the OP. The said agreement is produced, to which the complainants are the parties. The contents of the said document are not at dispute. Of course complainants after calculating the said amount indue sent one banker cheque on 24.08.2008 for Rs.1,87,163.70. As the amount noted in the bankers cheque is less than what is actually due to the OP including the principal pre-closure charges, they have not encashed it. That act of the OP cannot be termed as deficiency in service. Merely because an offer is made by the complainant to pre-close the said loan is not the sole criteria to accept whatever the allegations made by the complainants are true. Parties to the documents are bound to follow the terms and conditions. 8. When the complainants are in due of certain amount including the pre-closure charges they are bound to pay the same. If they want to close the said loan account they have to perform their part of contract and obligation. If they failed to do so on some reasons they are the defaulters and they cannot allege the deficiency in service against the OP. The contention of the complainant that they are ready to pay the pre-closure charges at the rate of 1.69% only on the outstanding dues that is the principal amount Rs.1,87,163.70 rather does not hold force. 9. When complainants are in due of certain loan amount to OP, naturally OP is entitled to retain the said title deeds and post dated cheques till the dues are cleared. The options are still open to the complainants to make payment whatever the amount that is in due, get closed the account, then seek for return of the original title deeds and post dated cheques. When such an equally efficacious relief is readily available to the complainant, we do not think that their allegations made in the complaint are genuine. The complaint appears to be devoid of merits. There is no proof of deficiency in service. Hence the complainants are not entitled for the relief claimed. Accordingly we answer point nos.1 and 2 in negative and proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The complaint is dismissed. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs. (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 13th day of January 2009.) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT p.n.g.