Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/369/2023

SHREE BHAGWAN JINDAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

HFDC BANK LTD - Opp.Party(s)

RAVI INDER SINGH AND UDAI SINGH MANN

01 Oct 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/369/2023
Date of Institution	:	1/8/2023
Date of Decision	:	1/10/2024

 

1. Shree Bhagwan Jindal S/o Sh. S.N.Jindal,

2. Madhu Jindal W/o Shree Bhagwan Jindal,

Both R/o # 1418, Sector-42/B, Chandigarh-160036.

…Complainants

Versus

1.       HDFC Bank Limited, through its Branch Manager/Authorized Representative, Bank House, Plot No. 28, First Floor, Industrial Area, Phase-l, Chandigarh- 160002.

2. HDFC Bank Limited through its Branch Manager/Authorized Representative, S.C.O. 149-150, Sector-17/C, Chandigarh-160017.

Second Address: Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai, Maharashtra-400013

...Opposite Parties

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh.Ravi Inder Singh, Advocate for complainants
	:	OPs exparte.

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 against the opposite parties  (hereinafter referred to as the OPs). The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. It transpires from the averments as projected in the consumer complaint that the  complainants had taken housing loan from Punjab National Bank amounting to Rs. 1,20,00,000/-  which was sanctioned by the said bank on 20.8.2020, vide sanction letter Annexure C-2.  The complainant had further availed loan of Rs.25,00,000/- as overdraft facility to the existing housing loan from PNB vide application Annexure C-3 dated 5.12.2020 and in this manner the complainants had taken total loan of Rs.1,45,00,000/- from the PNB Bank.  Thereafter the complainants opted to change bank from PNB to HDFC Bank Ltd.  and bank transfer process was initiated vide application Annexure C-4 dated 13.12.2022. Thereafter the aforesaid loan account was transferred from PNB to HDFC Bank and account No.50200076662140 was allotted to the complainants, having limit of Rs.1,55,40,000/-vide sanction letter Annexure C-5 dated 30.12.2022. However the OPs’ bank converted the housing loan to Secured Dropline Overdraft Mortgage (DOD) facility for the reason best know to the OPs. Even the signatures of the complainant No.1 was not on the last page of the sanction letter. Due to the aforesaid act of the OPs, the complainants could not avail the benefit of tax rebate as the tax rebate was available on housing loan and not on the DOD facility. Moreover, the complainants have never  executed any document for the sanctioning of Secured Dropline Overdraft Mortgage facility by the OPs rather got their earlier housing loan transferred to the OPs’ bank. The aforesaid act of OPs by sanctioning DOD facility  amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  Not only this thereafter the OPs wrongly debited Rs.71221/-  on 1.2.2023  as debit interest capitalized without knowledge of the complainants and when the complainants resisted the aforesaid act of the OPs, an amount of Rs.35600/- was credited in the account of the complainants on 17.2.2023 . Thereafter the Ops again debited an amount of Rs.25,000/- and Rs.24,926/-  on the pretext of some pending documents by the complainant and the said deduction is also wrong. In this manner, the aforesaid act amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. OPs were requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2. OPs  were properly served and when OPs did not turn up before this Commission, despite proper service, they were proceeded against ex-parte on 3.10.2023.

2. In order to prove their respective claims the complainants have tendered/proved their evidence by way of respective affidavits and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainants and also gone through the file carefully.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the complainants that  the  complainants had taken housing loan of Rs.1,20,00,000/- and in addition to the same have also  availed loan of Rs.25,00,000/- as overdraft facility to the existing housing loan amount from PNB Bank (hereinafter referred to be previous bank) as is also evident from Annexure C-2 and C-3 and later on the complainants got the said housing loan transferred from the previous bank i.e. PNB to the OPs’ bank, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if the OPs had wrongly  converted the housing loan of complainants  to Secured Dropline Overdraft Mortgage facility of Rs.1,55,40,000/-  as is also evident from sanction letter Annexure C-5 dated 30.12.2022 and thereafter the OPs  wrongly debited an amount of Rs. 71,221/-  and had also debited Rs.25,000/- and Rs.24,926/-  on the pretext of non submission of documents by the complainants.
   2. Perusal of Annexure C-2  copy of sanction letter dated 20.8.2020   issued by the previous bank indicates that housing loan  of Rs.1,20,00,000/-  was sanctioned to the complainants. Annexure C-3  is the copy of sanction letter dated 5.12.2020 also indicates that the complainants were sanctioned with overdraft facility of Rs.25,00,000/- on the existing housing loan, making further clear that the total loan of Rs.1,45,00,000/- was sanctioned in favour of the complainant by the PNB bank.
   3. As per case of the complainant they had applied for transfer of the aforesaid housing loan from PNB bank to OPs’ bank  through email Annexure C-4 by submitting all the documents and the OPs had sanctioned loan vide sanction letter Annexure C-5. However perusal of Annexure C-5  further indicates that the OPs’ bank had not sanctioned the housing loan to the complainants rather had sanctioned Secured Dropline Overdraft Mortgage Facility  of Rs.1,55,40,000/-, making further clear that instead of sanctioning housing loan in favour of the  complainants as  requested by them the OPs had  sanctioned Secured  Dropline Overdraft Mortgage Facility  to the complainant.
   4. Thus, in view of averments made by the complainant duly  supported with the documentary evidence as discussed above, one thing is clear that the OPs have wrongly converted the housing loan of the complainant into  Secured Dropline Overdraft Mortgage Facility   and due to the aforesaid act of the OPs the complainants have suffered a lot. 
   5.  The complainants  have claimed that the  OPs have wrongly debited an amount of Rs.71,221/- as debit interest capitalized without the knowledge of the complainants. However, it is not clear from the record produced by the complainants if the complainants are making regular payment of the loan  installment and further that the OPs have already credited an amount of Rs.35,600/- in the account of the complainants. Thus, the complainants are required to prove on record if they are regularly paying loan installments but they failed to do so.   Thus, this fact can only be determined if we direct the OPs to overhaul the loan account of the complainants.
   6. Similarly so far  as the debit of Rs.25,000/- and Rs.24,926/- is concerned, the same is also required to be scrutinized  as without overhauling the account of the complainants it cannot be determined if the OPs have charged the aforesaid amounts on account of non execution of the required documents in the light of the agreement executed between the parties. Moreover, the OPs have sent several emails to the complainants for  submission/execution of pending documents  but despite of that the complainants failed to do so. Thus, the OPs are required to be directed to overhaul the loan account of the complainants.
   7.   In view of the above, it is safe to hold that there is deficiency  of service on the part of the OPs, especially when the entire case set up by the complainant in the consumer complaint as well as the evidence available on record is unrebutted by the OPs. Hence, the instant consumer complaint deserves to be allowed.
4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds, the same is hereby partly allowed and OPs are directed as under :-
   1.  to convert the Secured Dropline Overdraft Mortgage Facility to the complainants to housing loan account on the line of housing loans being sanctioned by the OPs to other customers on the execution of fresh housing loan agreement by the parties and  the  complainants shall submit the required document with the OPs within 45 days from the date of requirement if any by the OPs for the execution of housing loan agreement and thereafter  the OPs shall overhaul  the loan account of the complainants in the light of housing loan agreement and shall workout the interest charged on the already sanctioned loan and also credit the amount of Rs.25,000/- and Rs.24,926/- in the account of the complainant in case the same has been charged  on account of non-submissions of documents by the complainants.

 

2. to pay ₹10,000/- to the complainants as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment;

 

3. to pay ₹10,000/- to the complainants as costs of litigation.

 

 

5. This order be complied with by the OPs jointly and severally within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy thereof, failing which the amount(s) mentioned at Sr.No. (ii) above shall carry penal interest @ 12% per annum (simple) from the date of expiry of said period of 45 days, till realisation, apart from compliance of directions at Sr. (i)&(iii).
6. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.
7. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced 1/10/2024 mp			[Pawanjit Singh] President
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana] Member