Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/381/2018

T.Ravi Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC Bank - Opp.Party(s)

M.Madhu Prakash

29 Sep 2022

ORDER

                                                                  Complaint presented on :03.07.2012                                                                    

                                                                   Date of disposal            :29.09.2022

                                                                                  

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (NORTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 600 003.

 

                PRESENT : THIRU. G. VINOBHA, M.A., B.L.,                         :PRESIDENT

                                      TMT. KAVITHA KANNAN, M.E.,                        : MEMBER-I

                           THIRU.V.RAMAMURTHY,B.A.,B.L.,PGDLA.,   :MEMBER-II

 

C.C. No.381/2018

 

DATED WEDNESDAY THE 29^th  DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022

 

T. Ravikumar,

S/o P.N. Thirunavukarasu,

New No.34, Old No26,

Ujjini Street,

Ayanavaram,

Chennai-600 023.                                                                    …..Complainant

 

 ..Vs..

The Manager,

HDFC Bank Limited.,

Personal Loan Section,

56, G.N.Chetty Road,    

T. Nagar, Chennai-600 017                                                       ….. Opposite Party

 

 

Counsel for Complainant                          : M/s. M. Madhu Prakash & 2 others

 

Counsel for  opposite party                        : Mr.T.K.M.Saikrishnan &

                                                                  Mrs.N.Premalatha

 

 

 

 

 

 

ORDER

 

THIRU. V. RAMAMURTHY, B.A., B.L., PGDLA, MEMBER II:

This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 prays direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation to the complainant for the mental agony and pain incurred due to the opposite party’s unfair trade practice and deficiency of service, Rs.10,000/- towards cost of this complaint and direct the opposite party to issue NOC for the personal loan a/c. no. 11646824.

This complaint was originally filed before the District Commission, Chennai (South) and taken on file in C.C. No.147/2012.  Thereafter, the said complaint has been transferred to this Commission as per the proceedings of the Hon’ble S.C.D.R.C. and taken on file as C.C. No.381/2018.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The complainant had availed a personal loan No.11646824 from Opposite party on 16.07.2007 for Rs.1,00,000/- and the repayment for the loan is Rs.2758/- per month for 48 months.  The EMI for loan started on 10.08.2007 and the 48^th EMI was on 16.08.2011.  The complainant submits that opposite party has taken all the EMIs directly from complainant ICICI bank account .  Even after receiving 48^th EMI the opposite bank has looted a sum of Rs.8274/- from the complainant account by misusing his bank details.  The complainant submits that the opposite party till date has not taken any remedy for the above deduction and dragging the matter and made the complainant to run pillar to post  and finally the complainant sent a legal notice on 26.03.2012 for which the opposite party has replied that complainant has to pay some charges and the opposite party has taken that amount and ready to return the part amount.  The complainant further states that the opposite party has failed to take any action to settle the issue and therefore, the complainant submits that even after payment of entire loan amount, the opposite party  failed to return the amount of Rs.8274/- and because of the unfair trade practice and deficiency in service by the opposite party the complainant  undergone mental agony and pain and hence claimed Rs. 50,000/- as compensation and also to issue of NOC for the loan account No. 11646824. Hence this complaint.

2.WRITTENVERSION FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          The opposite party submitted that the complainant was issued a personal loan for Rs.1 Lakhs vide loan account no. 11646824 and as per agreement the Ist EMI due date was 10.08.2007 and last EMI due date was 10.07.2011.  The opposite party denies the allegation of complainant that money had been taken from his account even after payment of 48 EMIs.  The opposite party submits that it was complainant who failed to pay the Ist EMI of 2758/- on the stipulated date on 10.07.2007 and as per terms and conditions of loan agreement, it accrued to a sum of Rs.3221/- being interest and other overdue charges for 48 months.  The opposite party denies the complainant allegation that complainant contacted the customer care of opposite party, and they never addressed the grievance of the complainant.  The opposite party in fact made efforts to clear the pending EMI, but the complainant failed to pay and finally they contacted the complainant and with his consent only the security cheque of Rs. 8274/- was presented for clearance.  The opposite party after adjusting the dues of Rs.5979/- communicated the complainant over telephone that excess amount of Rs.2295/- will be sent by way of DD for which the complainant was reluctant to accept.  The opposite party submits that the complainant never approached for any appropriate action in the Bank requesting for details or for the refund of the said amount.  The opposite party submits that moment the complainant addressed his grievance vide legal notice dated 26.03.2012, the opposite party without any delay sent a reply to the same.  Hence there was no deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant and therefore the complaint may be dismissed with cost.

3. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

1. Whether there is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part opposite party as alleged in the complaint?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs prayed in the complaint.     If, so to what extent?

The complainant filed proof affidavit, written arguments and Ex.A1 to A5 were marked on his side.  The opposite party filed written version, proof affidavit, written arguments and Ex.B1 to B4 were marked on the opposite party side.

4. POINT NO :1 :-

          The complainant had availed a personal loan No.11646824 from Opposite party on 16.07.2007 for Rs.1,00,000/- and the repayment for the loan was Rs.2758/- per month for 48 months.  The EMI for loan started on 10.08.2007 and the 48^th EMI was on 16.08.2011.  The complainant submits that opposite party had taken all the EMIs directly from complainant ICICI bank account .  The statement issued by opposite party bank is marked as Ex.A1.  The ICICI bank statement stating the pending 1^st EMI was taken on 20.09.2007 which is marked as Ex.A2.  Even after receiving 48^th EMI the opposite party bank has debited a sum of Rs.8274/- from the complainant account by misusing his bank details.  The opposite party till date has not taken any remedy for the above deduction and finally the complainant sent a legal notice on 26.03.2012 for which the opposite party has replied that complainant has to pay some charges and the opposite party has taken that amount and ready to return the part amount.  The legal notice and Ack. Card are marked as Ex.A3  and Ex.A4.  The reply notice is marked as Ex.A5.  The opposite party has failed to take any action to settle the issue and therefore, the complainant contended that even after payment of entire loan amount, the opposite party  failed to return the amount of Rs.8274/- and because of the unfair trade practice and deficiency in service by the opposite party the complainant  undergone mental agony and pain and hence claimed Rs. 50,000/- as compensation and also issue of NOC for the loan account No. 11646824.

          5. But, on the other hand the opposite party contended that the loan agreement period was from 10.08.2007 to 10.07.2011 comprising 48 installments and according to opposite party, the Ist EMI was not paid by the complainant.  The complainant was not paying the EMI on the scheduled dates.  Hence the dues attracted interest and other overdue charges  as per the RBI guidelines and banking rules accrued to the extent of Rs.3221/- besides Ist EMI amount of Rs. 2758/-.  Since the complainant failed to pay the balance amount of Rs. 5979/-, the opposite party encashed the security cheque submitted by complainant at the time of availing loan and set off the due amount.  After setting off the dues, the opposite party made efforts to return the excess amount of Rs.2295/- to complainant but the complainant was reluctant to receive the same and hence contended that there was no unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on their part.

          6. The complainant relied on Ex.A2 and contended that opposite party has taken all the EMIs from complainant ICICI bank account and the Ist EMI was debited on 20.09.2007.  But as per the loan agreement which is marked as Ex.B3, the loan amount was Rs.1,00,000/-, the 1^st EMI due date was 10.08.2007, last EMI due date was 10.07.2011 and agreement tenure was 48 months with monthly EMI amount of Rs.2758/-.  It is also observed that EMI due date was10^th of every month.  It is evident from Ex.A1 and Ex. B4, statement of accounts that 1^st EMI was not paid by the complainant in the month of Aug 2007. The complainant failed to file the full bank statement of accounts from which the EMIs were debited to establish the payment of 48 EMIs on his side.  Hence the contention of the complainant that all the EMIs were paid is not proved. 

7. The complainant alleged that opposite party looted a sum of Rs.8274/- from his account.  On the other hand, it is observed from Ex.A1 and Ex.B4, the 1^st EMI was not paid by the complainant.  According to opposite party, the complainant has not paid 20 EMIs on schedule date and it is evident from the statement of accounts marked as Ex.A1.  The opposite party claimed that the interest and other overdue charges were accrued to the extent of Rs.3221/- besides 1^st EMI amount of Rs.2758/- and the total due as on 31.01.2012 was Rs.5979/-.  From the Ex.A1, it is observed that the balance accrued amount as on 31.01.2012 was Rs.5979/- and after adjusting this amount by encashing the security cheque for Rs.8274/-, the complainants loan account shows a credit of Rs. 2295/-.   From the reply notice of opposite party marked as Ex.B1, it is noticed that the opposite party made efforts to refund the excess amount of Rs.2295/- to complainant by DD but the complainant was reluctant to accept the same.  Hence the allegation of the complainant that opposite party has looted money from his account is not maintainable. The bank as per the banking rules and regulations is entitled to encash the cheque given by the complainant at the time of opening the account and adjust the same towards the amount due which is payable by the complainant which will not amount to unfair trade practice or deficiency in service.  Similarly the bank has sent a reply marked as Ex.B1 on 25.04.2012 itself even prior to filing of this complaint requesting the complainant to collect the excess amount of Rs.2295/- by way of Demand Draft dated 18.02.2012 but the complainant has not accepted to the said request and hence that will not amount to default or deficiency in service on the part of the bank.

8. The complainant in his averment in written arguments alleged that the default amount should be properly calculated by opposite party.  It is evident from the Ex.A1, the bank statement filed by the complainant that the details of dues and the penal charges levied for late payment of EMI were clearly shown by the opposite party and hence the allegation of the complainant that the default amount was not calculated properly by the opposite party is not maintainable and the opposite party has not committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  Point no. 1 answered accordingly.

9. Point No.2.

Based on findings given to point no.1  it is found that the complainant failed to prove the alleged unfair trade practice and deficiency in service by the opposite party  and it is found from Ex.B4 and Ex.A1 that after adjusting the cheque amount of Rs.8274/- towards the amount due by the complainant as on 31.01.2012 there is excess amount of Rs.2295/- available with the opposite party which as already stated though offered by the bank was not accepted  by the complainant and which is liable to be return by the bank to the complainant and further as the entire loan amount was paid and discharged the opposite party is liable to issue no due certificate in respect of personnel loan account no. 11646824 to the complainant and since the bank was ready to return the excess amount even in April 2012 the complainant having failed to receive that amount is not entitled for any interest for that amount and point No.2 is  answered accordingly.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed, the opposite party is directed to return the excess amount of Rs.2295/- to the complainant and also issue No Due Certificate in respect of Loan A/c.No. 11646824 and to pay Rs.5000/- towards the cost of complaint.

           The above order shall be complied by the opposite party within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the above said amount shall carry 9% interest from the date of order till the date of payment. 

Dictated  by the Member-II to the Steno-Typist taken down, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 29^th  day of  September 2022.

 

MEMBER – I                MEMBER – II                                 PRESIDENT

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1	03.02.2003	Statement issued by HDFC Bank
Ex.A2		ICICI Statement stating pending 1 EMI taken on 20.09.2007.
Ex.A3	26.03.2012	Legal notice caused to the opposite party
Ex.A4	28.03.2012	Acknowledgement card
Ex.A5	25.04.2012	Legal notice by the opposite party

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTY:

Ex.B1	25.04.2012	Reply notice and proof of service of the reply notice dated on 25.04.2012.
Ex.B2		Loan Application Form
Ex.B3		Loan agreement
Ex.B4	19.01.2016	Statement of Accounts

 

 

MEMBER – I                MEMBER – II                                 PRESIDENT