Delhi

StateCommission

CC/398/2015

RAVINDER KUMAR GROVER - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC BANK - Opp.Party(s)

19 Apr 2016

ORDER

 

 

IN THE STATE COMMISSION

(Constituted under section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

Date of Decision: 19.04.2016

 

Complaint Case No. 398/2015

 

        In the Matter of:

 

                Ravinder Kumar Grover,

          S/o Lt. Sh. N.D. Grover,

          R/o: H-16, Bali Nagar,

          New Delhi.

……Complainant     Versus   HDFC Bank, Through its Manager, 2nd Floor, Express Building, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110002.                                                                                    …….Opposite Party

CORAM

Justice Veena Birbal, President

Salma Noor, Member

1.   Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the   judgment? 

2.   To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

Justice Veena Birbal, President

1.             This is a complaint u/s 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short ‘the Act’) wherein it is stated that complainant is a senior citizen and is residing in Delhi for the last 50 years.

2.             The complainant has alleged that in the year 2008, he had taken a loan from OP against the property for an amount of Rs.35,80,000/-.  It is alleged that at the time of taking loan,  complainant was running a shop and had already taken loan from other banks and financial institutions i.e. ICICI bank, Vijaya bank, GE money financial services limited.  However the officers of the OP approached the complainant of their own and proposed for taking the complete loan from OP instead of taking from different institutions and also assured to give the benefit of giving lower interest rates.  The officers of OP also assured that they will settle the loan taken by the complainant from the other financial institutions.  Accordingly the complainant agreed for taking the loan from the OP and the same was granted to him on 4.2.08.  With the loan amount, the loan of other banks and financial institutions was also settled by the OP as a result of which less amount came in the hands of complainant.  It is alleged that the complainant was regularly making repayment of loan by way of EMIs to the OP.  The complainant has given the details of yearwise repayment of loan to the OP in the complaint.  It is alleged that despite making payments within time, OP was charging late fee on the installments.

3.     It is alleged that loan was to be repaid in 120 monthly installments.  It is further alleged that complainant had repaid 105 EMIs but the officials of bank were forcing him to pay 147 EMIs.    

4.     It is alleged that the bank had filed a case for non-payment of installments in the year 2011 but the same was ultimately withdrawn as the complainant had paid the amount.  It is further alleged that the complainant had paid substantial amount by way of EMIs towards repayment of loan.  Still the bank is forcing him to pay more EMIs.  It is alleged that even the interest amount charged is on higher side.  By way of this complaint, prayer is made for the following reliefs:

“i) That in the circumstances under the provision of legal jurisprudence the opposite party is liable to restore the agreed installment periods i.e. 120 instead of 147, including simple interest 14% charged upon the principle amounts at the time of taking loan;

ii)  Pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards the physical strain and mental agony suffered by the complainant and his family members;

iii) Pay a sum of Rs.51,000/- towards cost of this petition.

iv) To pass such other further orders as this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and interest of justice.”

5.             While hearing on the admissibility of complaint, it has been brought to our notice that the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act had already been initiated by the OP against the complainant.  The complainant has also moved for stay of the proceedings under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.  A copy of application dated 31.7.15 has also been placed before us.  As the SARFAESI proceedings have already been initiated against the complainant, the jurisdiction of this Commission is barred under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.  Accordingly the complaint is not maintainable and the same stands dismissed at admission stage.

 

 (Justice Veena Birbal)

President

 

 

(Salma Noor)

Member