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

========

Mr.Jagmeet Randhawa, R/o H.No.4311, G.F., Sector 68, Mohali 160055, Punjab.

….…Complainant

                                      V E R S U S

HDFC Bank Limited, Retail Asset Division, SCO No.76-77, Ist Floor, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh, 160018, through its Director.

2^nd Address:-        HDFC Bank Limited, SCO No.78-79, Sector 8-C, Madhya                          Marg, Chandgiarh 160018

                                                ..…Opposite Party

CORAM:     SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL            PRESIDENT

                   DR.(MRS) MADHU BEHL                     MEMBER

                   SH. RAJINDER SINGH GILL                 MEMBER

Argued by:   Sh.Deepak Aggarwal, Adv. for complainant.

Sh.Sandeep Suri, Adv. for OP.

PER SHRI JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDENT

                   The complainant availed a loan of Rs.1,78,500/- from OP bank for purchase of second hand car, repayable in equated monthly installments of Rs.4695/- only w.e.f. 7.12.2006 to 7.6.2011.  However, the complainant on 22.7.2009 foreclosed the said loan account by making payment of the balance amount of Rs.1,02,269.40 through cheque Ann.C-4 and against receipt Ann.C-6.  Thereafter complainant requested the OP Bank to issue him NOC to get his vehicle transferred in his name but they kept on delaying the matter on one pretext or the other and later on took ground that some amount was pending against him pertaining to one old personal loan taken in the year 2002.  It is averred that complainant showed them the documents about clearance of his old loan but inspite of that they refused to issue the NOC.  Ultimately, a legal notice was sent to OP bank vide Ann.C-8 but it was not replied.  Hence, this complaint alleging above act of OP as gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, causing the complainant great mental & physical harassment.

2]                OP filed reply admitting the factual matrix of the case.  It is stated that the NOC for the loan in question was not issued to the complainant as the same was under lien on account of the pending dues in earlier loan taken by him.  It is also stated that the complainant himself failed to give details qua the closure of his earlier loan amount.  However, when the complainant produced the Receipt No.181239 pertaining to his old loan case, the amount found due under the personal loan agreement was waived off and the personal loan account was closed and the lien imposed in the auto loan account was cleared and subsequently, the NOC was issued on 8.10.2009 but complainant himself refused to accept it citing the reason of pending court case.  Denying rest of the allegations and pleading no deficiency in service, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

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 contention of the complainant is that he had already cleared the previous loan as well as the present loan and nothing was due from him but even then N.O.C. was not issued to him by the OP bank.  The OPs in preliminary objection number 2 of their reply have admitted that the N.O.C. was withheld on account of the pending dues from him, but the complainant had represented having repaid the entire amount upon which he was asked to show the receipt in this respect.  Since, admittedly the amount had been paid in full and nothing was due from the complainant the OPs were required to update their records, the moment the previous payment was made by the complainant.  If the OPs are not updating their records in accordance with the payments and they go on harassing the customers requiring them to produce the receipts in this respect, that by itself, amounts to deficiency in service. Infact when the entire amount of loan had been repaid by the complainant the OPs should have immediately issued the N.O.C. and should not have waited for a request being made to them by the complainant or loanees in this respect. The OPs are adopting an unfair trade practice of not updating their records but asking the loanees to produce the receipts when ever the request for issuance of N.O.C. is made.  It is admitted that subsequently the N.O.C. was issued to the complainant, which by itself shows that nothing was due from him and the OPs were deficient in rendering proper service.

6]                The OPs had submitted the N.O.C. alongwith Form 35 in duplicate on 15.02.2010, which was accepted on behalf of the complainant. This request of the complainant therefore has been satisfied.  As regards the request for compensation the complainant is entitled to the same as N.O.C. was not promptly issued to him when he had paid the entire amount.  He had contacted the OPs but they declined to issue the N.O.C. Their contention that the complainant was asked to produce the receipt is not supported by any document.  The complainant ultimately had to file the present complaint and spent his valuable time and money thereon.  We are therefore of the opinion that the complainant should be compensated by the OPs for the mental and physical harassment caused to him. 

7]                In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the present complaint must succeed.  The same is accordingly allowed.  The OPs are directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards compensation within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the OPs would be liable to pay the same alongwith penal interest @12% p.a. since the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 27.10.2009., till the payment is actually made to the complainant.

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