BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

Sarita Chaudhary D/o Sh.Karam Chand Rana, R/o House No.616, Sector 36-B, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

                                      V E R S U S

HDFC Bank, SCO No.371-372, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager.

                                                ……Opposite Parties

CORAM:     SH.P.D.GOEL                                             PRESIDENT

                   SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL                         MEMBER

                   DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA       MEMBER

Argued by:    Sh.C.L.Chaudhary, Counsel for the complainant.

Sh.Sandeep Suri, Counsel for OP.

PER DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA,    MEMBER

                Briefly stated, the complainant had opened LAS A/C No.00352100002092 with OP Bank, operative from 10.12.2004. The complainant had regularly paid the interest on the loan amount utilized, from Dec. 2004 to Dec., 2010 and till then, there was no outstanding amount of interest.  It is averred that the OP vide letter dated 3.11.2011 demanded interest of Rs.74,719.21 (Ann.C-1) from the complainant.  The complainant vide letter dated 25.11.2011 (Ann.C-2) agreed to clear the interest amount of Rs.74,719.21 by 31.3.2012. 

                It is averred that the OP did not send any reply and resorted to shares sale without the consent of the complainant. The account statement submitted by OP to the complainant (Ann.C-3) shows that the OP has sold her shares for an amount of Rs.85,301.80, which is totally illegal and unfair.  The Bank has also not given any details about the shares, their numbers and at what price those were sold.  It is also asserted that the OP has also arbitrarily debited Rs.500/- on 9.12.2011, from the account of the complainant, besides debiting a sum of Rs.51.50 and Rs.25/-.  The matter was brought to the notice of OP, but to no avail.  Hence, this complaint.

2]             OP filed reply and admitted that the complainant had availed a facility of finance under scheme of Loan Against Securities, whereby complainant availed credit limit facility by pledging the shares. It is stated that as per terms of contract, the complainant was required to maintain shares of a value, as required, to continue to avail the facility, failing which, the OP was free to put the shares to sale for recovery of its dues.  There was a deficiency in the account of the complainant, which was intimated to him, vide letter dated 6.10.2011.  The facility was for Rs.5.00 lacs and the account was overdrawn, so the complainant was asked to pay cash into the account; but neither the account was funded nor interest, as accrued, was paid.  As the complainant failed to clear the dues by 10.12.2011, the Bank was constrained to put the shares to sale for the recovery of the amount, as per the agreement.  It is also stated that Rs.500/- has been charged on account of LAS-AMC charges for maintaining the account, besides service tax and cess, as per government guidelines. Pleading no deficiency in service, OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

3]             Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4]             We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

5]             The grouse of the complainant against the OP, in this complaint, is that the OP had resorted to the sale of her shares for an amount of Rs.85,301.80, without her consent, as is evident from Account Statement (Ann.C-3).  The OP has also not given her any details as to which shares, what numbers and at what price, the same were sold by the OP.  Moreover, the OP is unilaterally adding the amount and debiting the same to the account of the complainant, illegally.  Therefore, the said act & conduct of OP constitutes deficiency in service and adopting unfair trade practice.

6]             Whereas the OPs in their written reply has stated that the complainant has availed the Credit Limit Facility to the tune of Rs.5.00 lacs through pledging of shares.  It is stated that in accordance with the terms of the said contract, the complainant was required to maintain shares of a value as required, to avail the facility, failing which the OP was free to put the shares to sale for recovery of its dues.  It is pleaded that there was a violation of the applicable guidelines, as interest was required to be serviced regularly; but on the contrary there was a deficiency in the account of the complainant, which was intimated to her through various modes.  However, as the complainant failed to pay & duly funded the account, the OP was constrained to put the shares to sale for recovery of the amount.  The OP has denied any deficiency in service on their part, rather stated that the complainant failed to perform her part of the contract. 

7]           After going through facts & circumstances of the present complaint as well as perusing the documents placed on file by both the parties, in order to clinch the matter in dispute, it has been made out that the complainant has availed the Credit Limited facility by pledging of her shares vide agreement/contract, “Loan Against Securities”, placed on record by the OP as Ann.A.  In this document Ann.A at Page No.16, there is another document titled LOAN-AGREEMENT-CUM-GURANTEE, which has been duly signed by the complainant.   The Clause No.12 of this LOAN-AGREEMENT-CUM-GURANTEE, it has been stipulated that:-

“12)         In the even that the Borrower creates a pledge/mortgage  of the Securities in favour of the Bank and the Bank advances monies to the borrower under the overdraft facility in the manner set out in this Agreement then it is agreed by and between the parties that :

                (i)    ………

(ii)   If at any time the value of the said Securities falls so as to create a deficiency in the margin requirement specified by the Bank from time to time or there is an excess over the overdraft facility limit, the Borrower shall within seven days of notice from the Bank, deposit with the Bank additional Security in the form of cash or such other Securities which may be acceptable to the Bank, failing which the Bank may at its discretion sell, dispose off or realize any or all of the Securities then held by the bank without being liable for any loss or damage or diminution in value sustained thereby.” 

8]             From the above clause, it is clear that the OP Bank was authorize to sell, dispose off or realize any or all of the Securities; if the Borrower/ Complainant failed to clear the deficiency in the margin, within stipulated time; requirement specified by the Bank from time to time or there is an excess overdraft facility limit.

9]             Moreover, the OP Bank vide letter dated 3-Nov-11, had intimated the complainant about Non- Servicing of interest in her Loan Against Securities Account.  The said letter has been placed on record by the complainant herself.  The relevant portion of said letter is reproduced below:-

‘As you are aware, interest is debited to your Overdraft account on a monthly basis.  Please note that as per guidelines issued by RBI, interest debited should be serviced by way of deposits in the overdraft account.  This deposit for the interest servicing has to be done even if the outstanding balance in your account is lower than credit limit.

Based on the above, we note that there is a shortfall of Rs.74,719.21 in the interest serviced. We therefore request you to fund the account latest by 11-Nov-11.’   

10]           It is clear beyond doubt that since the complainant has herself failed to clear her Credit Loan Account by paying the due amount, as requested & demanded by the OP from time to time, therefore, the OP Bank was constrained to put the shares of the complainant to sell for recovery of the amount, as per the agreement. Thus, there was no deficiency or negligence on the part of OP Bank, on the aforesaid account.  However, the OP Bank is liable to supply the details of the shares sold by it from time to time, which were pledged by the complainant.  

11]           The complainant has specifically alleged that the OP has arbitrarily debited Rs.500/- on 9.12.2011 from her account, besides debiting a sum of Rs.51.50 and Rs.25/-.   In reply to it, the OP has stated that the amount of Rs.500/- had been charged on account of LAS-AMC Charges for maintaining the account, besides service tax & cess, as per government guidelines.  

12]           Admittedly, the OP has not placed on record any such guidelines qua which the OP Bank was authorized to charge the aforesaid amounts of  Rs.500/-, Rs.51.50 and Rs.25/-, from the account of the complainant.  Thus, we are of the opinion that the said amounts have been wrongly debited by the OP from the account of the complainant, which amount to deficiency in service on its part.

13]           Keeping in view the above situation, discussion as well as documents on record, we are of the opinion that the present complaint deserves to be partly allowed.  The same is allowed partly.  The OP Bank is directed to refund the amount of Rs.576.50 along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of their respective debits till its actual payment, apart from paying litigation cost of Rs.5000/-.  The OP bank is also directed to supply complete details, to the complainant, about her shares, sold by it from time to time, with rates & numbers etc.  There is no order as to costs.  

                This order be complied with by the OP within in a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the OP shall be liable to refund the awarded amount along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of filing this complaint i.e.17.1.2012 till its actual payment, besides paying litigation cost, as aforesaid.

                Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.