Order by:

Smt.Priti Malhotra, President

1.       The complainant has filed the instant complaint under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 stating that the complainant has three Agr. Limit Loan Accounts with Opposite Party bearing no.753000049011, 721000020170 and 75300049011. Complainant wanted to obtain loan from another bank, so he wanted to close all three accounts maintained with Opposite Party and requested them to tell about the total outstanding amount of the loan, but they did not disclose him the total outstanding amount and did not close his accounts. Complainant also served a legal notice dated 11.08.2023, but to no effect. Due to such act and conduct of the Opposite Party, the complainant has suffered mental tension and harassment. Hence, this complaint. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs:-

a)       Opposite parties may be directed to close the three loan accounts maintained by complainant with them.  

b)      To pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental tension, harassment and agony.

c)       And any other relief which this Commission may deem fit and proper be granted to the complainant in the interest of justice and equity.

2.       Notice of the complaint was duly issued to Opposite Party, but service of notice, Opposite Party failed to appear before this Commission either in person or through any representative, hence Opposite Party is proceeded against exparte.

3.       In order to prove his case, the complainant has placed on record his affidavit as Ex.C1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C12.

4.       We have heard the ld. counsel for the complainant and also gone through the record.

5.       It is proved on record that the complainant has Arg. Limit Loan accounts bearing no.753000049011, 721000020170, 753000049011 with Opposite Party and he made a request to Opposite Party to close his accounts as he wanted to take loan from another bank i.e. HDFC Bank (Ex.C3), but the Opposite Party did not close his accounts, in this regard complainant has also raised complaints with CePC as well as with RBI, vide Ex.C5 to Ex.C7. It is also proved on record that HDFC Bank i.e. the bank purported to take over the limit of complainant, also issued letter dated 19.01.2023 (Ex.C8) and dated 06.02.2023 (Ex.C9) to complainant’s bank to provide the Credit Information of the complainant, which the same bank i.e. opposite party failed to provide.   Moreover, HDFC Bank also issued pay order covering letter dated 02.03.2023 (Ex.C12) to Opposite Party bank stating that they have been approached by Parlad Singh (complainant) requesting for grant of working capital facilities and take-over of the facilities availed by Parlad Singh from their bank. It is also evident from the said letter that HDFC bank also mentioned the detail of Pay Orders towards full and final repayment of facilities availed by Parlad Singh including all charges and interest. However despite so many complaints and despite being completing all the formalities by taking over bank i.e. HDFC Bank, the Opposite Party Bank failed to close the Agri. Limit Loan accounts of the complainant and harassed the complainant badly. Hence the deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party Bank is writ large.

6.       During the course of arguments, ld. counsel for the complainant has produced on record reply to the legal notice of the complainant, vide which, Opposite Party bank has stated that his client (i.e. Complainant) has never made any request for loan closure neither have issued any DD for closure of loan account nor any request from other bank is received for taking over of loan account. The pleas taken by Opposite Party in the said reply are not genuine and not tenable as from the perusal of the documents so placed on record by the complainant it is evident that complainant has made all efforts to get his loan accounts closed and the HDFC Bank has also issued pay order covering letter to Opposite Party bank with regard to taking over the loan limit of complainant. So, the pleas taken by Opposite Party in reply to the legal notice are wrong and illegal.

7.       Moreover, the evidence so produced by the complainant has gone unrebutted and unchallenged through any cogent and convincing evidence on record as the Opposite party  did not opt to appear and contest the proceedings.  In this way, the Opposite party has impliedly admitted the correctness of the allegations made in the complaint.

8.       From the discussion above, we partly allow the present complaint and direct Opposite Party to redress the grievance of the complainant by providing him the outstanding amount details of all his loan accounts with it and close the same after due clearance made by the complainant. Opposite Party is also directed to pay compository cost of Rs.5,000/-(Five Thousand only) to be paid to complainant as compensation and litigation expenses. The compliance of this order be made by the Opposite Party within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which, the Opposite Party is further burdened with additional cost of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand only) to be paid to the complainant for non compliance of the order. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.

Announced on Open Commission