Delhi

North East

RBT/CC/235/2022

TIRLOCHAN SINGH DHINGRA - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

11 Mar 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

RBT/Complaint Case No.235/22

In the matter of:

 

	Sh. Tirlochan Singh Dhingra, S/o Late Sh. Sardul Singh, 10/53, West Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi 110026	Complainant
	Versus
1.                 2.	HDFC Bank Ltd., Unit No. 100 A-1, Capital Court, Outer Ring Road, New Delhi 110067 Also At: 251, 2nd Floor, Tower B, Aggarwal Plaza, Netaji Subhash Place, New Delhi 110034   Cholamandalam Insurance Company Office at: Plot No. 6, 1st Floor, Near Metro Pillar No. 81, Main Pusa Road, Karol Bagh, Delhi 110005	Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                         DATE OF ORDER  :

31.10.2018 19.01.2024 11.03.2024

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

ORDER

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that on 26.05.2016, the Complainant had taken a home loan of Rs. 13,00,000/- at the rate of 9.45 % for 30 years from the Opposite Party No. 1 vide loan account no. 619924316 against the property no. B-2/191-192, Sector 6, Rohini, New Delhi. Complainant paid an amount of Rs. 10,884/- p.m. as instalment to Opposite Party No. 1. On 24.11.2017, Complainant had paid partial/part payment of Rs. 2,00,000/- to Opposite Party No. 1 and at the same time Complainant had reduced the duration of the instalment from 30 years to 8.5 years. Opposite Party No. 1 had again set the monthly instalment of Rs. 15,000/- for 8.5 yrs. On 26.05.2018, Complainant had paid all the loan amount or pre closed his home loan account after paying sum of Rs. 10,14,529/- to the Opposite Party No. 1. Complainant went to the office of Opposite Party No. 1 for taking the N.O.C for clearance of loan then Opposite Party No. 1 refuse to give the N.O.C by stating that at the time of issuing the loan, the Opposite Party No. 1 had done the insurance policy of the Complainant for 30 years and Opposite Party No. 1 had taken the insurance policy from Opposite Party No. 2 and the premium for the same was deducted from the instalment paid by the Complainant towards loan amount on monthly basis. Opposite Party No. 1 also told that now since Complainant had pre closed the loan then Complainant need to pay whole amount of insurance policy i.e. Rs. 51,245/- and after that Opposite Party No. 1 would give the N.O.C. Complainant stated that he was not aware about the policy and Opposite Party No. 2 had not issued any document relating to the insurance policy. Complainant stated that when he asked for the documents of insurance policy then Opposite Party No. 1 said that they already done the insurance policy and after checking the same Opposite Party No. 1 also said that they be mistaken mention the wrong address of the Complainant. Complainant paid a sum of      Rs. 51,245/- to the Opposite Party No. 1 to get the N.O.C. Complainant stated that when he asked Opposite Party No. 1 that since he had satisfied the loan amount within 2 years 2 months then why should he pay the premium against the insurance policy for 30 years then Opposite Party No. 1 replied that they don’t know anything but Complainant had to pay the whole amount of the insurance policy to get the N.O.C. Complainant sent a mail to the Opposite Party No. 1 regarding the issue of the insurance policy then Opposite Party No. 1 on 08.08.2018 replied and told to visit the nearest Indusind Bank and they would return the insurance amount. As per direction of Opposite Party No. 1 Complainant visited the office of Indusind Bank regarding the issue then executive of Indusind Bank said that they had not provided the home loan and also stated that Opposite Party No. 1 was misguiding the Complainant. Again Complainant contacted the Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 2 and after 02 years Complainant got the insurance policy documents. Complainant stated that he sent many emails to Opposite Parties for returning the insurance amount but they did not give any response. Hence, this shows the deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Parties. Complainant has prayed for Rs. 52,046/- i.e. the insurance amount, Rs. 25,000/- on account of mental harassment and Rs. 20,000/- on account of litigation expenses.  

Case of the Opposite Party No. 1

2. The Opposite Party No. 1 contested the case and filed its written statement. It is stated that the contract between the Complainant and Opposite Party No. 2 is independent and therefore, Opposite Party No. 1 is not a privy to the contract. Opposite Party No. 1 is financer and had advanced loan to the Complainant. It is stated that the complaint is misconceived. There is no cause of action against Opposite Party No. 1. The allegations of the Complainant have been denied. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed. It is stated that Opposite Party No. 1 was under no liability to supply the policy documents to the Complainant.

Case of the Opposite Party No. 2

3. The Opposite Party No. 2 contested the case and filed its written statement. It is stated that the Complainant never approached it for cancellation of the insurance policy. It is stated that had the Complainant approached it for cancellation of the policy, it would have cancel the same.  The allegations of the Complainant have been denied by Opposite Party No. 2 and it is prayed that the complaint may be dismissed.

 

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Parties

4. The Complainant filed separate rejoinders to the written statement of Opposite Parties wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Parties and has reiterated the assertions made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

5. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his evidence by way of affidavit, wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Party No. 1

6. In order to prove its case, Opposite Party No. 1 has filed affidavit of Smt. Sheetal Khandelwal, wherein the averments made in the written statement of Opposite Party No. 1 have been supported.

Evidence of the Opposite Party No. 2

7. In order to prove its case, Opposite Party No. 2 has filed affidavit of Mr. Ankur Mathur, Legal Manager of Opposite Party No. 2 wherein the averments made in the written statement of Opposite Party No. 2 have been supported.

Arguments & Conclusion

8. We have heard the AR for the Complainant and Ld. Counsels for the Opposite Parties. We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by the Complainant and Opposite Party No. 1. The case of the Complainant is that he had obtained a housing loan from Opposite Party No. 1 and he had repaid the said loan to Opposite Party No. 1 within 2 years and 2 months. His case is that after clearing all the loan amount he approached Opposite Party No. 1 for issuing him No Objection/ No Dues Certificate but the same was not issued by Opposite Party No. 1 on the ground that at the time of advancing the loan, insurance policy was issued by the Opposite Party No. 2 for 30 years as the loan was agreed to be paid within 30 years. The said insurance policy was issued for a sum of      Rs. 51,245/-. The case of the Complainant is that the said insurance policy was done without his knowledge and he was never supplied the said insurance policy by the Opposite Parties. His case is that even his address was wrongly mentioned in the said insurance policy. The said facts have been mentioned by the Complainant in para no. 6 and 7 of his complaint. The said facts have not been specifically denied by the Opposite Parties in their written statements nor the Opposite Parties have led evidence to show that the said insurance policy was ever supplied to the Complainant or that the said insurance policy bears the correct address of the Complainant. Therefore, under these circumstances we can safely say that the Complainant was not aware about the said insurance policy and the said insurance policy was not supplied to the Complainant. It is also prove that the said insurance policy did not bear the correct address of the Complainant. Therefore, under these circumstances, it is held that the insurance policy was done without the knowledge of the Complainant and the said policy was also not supplied to the Complainant. Further, the case of the Complainant is that he had received a mail from Opposite Party No. 1 to visit nearest Indusind Bank for refund of the policy amount but nothing was done after the Complainant visited the branch of Indusind Bank. Further, it is to be noted that Opposite Party No. 2 has stated in the written statement that the Complainant did not approach it for cancellation of policy. In case, the Opposite Party No. 2 was acting in the fair manner it would have cancel the policy after receiving the notice of filing of this complaint and it would had returned the insurance amount to the Complainant.
9. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that there is deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party No. 2 i.e. Cholamandalam Insurance Company. It is ordered that Opposite Party No. 2 shall return the insurance amount i.e. 51,245/- to the Complainant along with interest @ 9 % p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till recovery. It is also ordered that Opposite Party No. 2 shall pay an amount of Rs. 25,000/- on account of mental harassment and Rs. 25,000/- on account of litigation expense to the Complainant along with interest @ 9 % p.a. from the date of this order till recovery.
10. Order announced on 11.03.2024.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Anil Kumar Bamba)		(Surinder Kumar Sharma)
(Member)		(President)