Delhi

StateCommission

FA/228/2014

HDFC BANK LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

JAVEED PARVEEZ - Opp.Party(s)

20 Mar 2015

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Decision : 20.03.2015

First Appeal No.228/2014

(Arising out of the order dated 25.02.2014 in Complaint Case No. 276/2011 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (Central), Maharana Pratap Bus Terminal, 5^th Floor, ISBT, Kashmere Gate: Delhi-110006)

       

 

HDFC BANK LTD.

having its registered office at

HDFC Bank House, Senapati Bapat Marg,

Lower Parel (West)

Mumbai 400013 and having its

Branch Office at BG-09, 10,11, Plot No. 2

Commercial Complex, RG Complex,

Motia Khan, Pahar Ganj

New Delhi-110005 and Retail Delhi Office

at: 2^nd Floor, Express Building,

Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg

New Delhi-110002                 …Appellant  

                                                      

VERSUS

Javeed Parvez

S/o Sh. Shabbir-UL-Haque

R/o House No. D-106/613

Street No.1, Chauhan Bamger

New Seelampur, Delhi-110053  ......Respondent

 

CORAM

Salma Noor, Member

N P Kaushik, Member (Judicial)

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment? Yes

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes

N P Kaushik, Member (Judicial)

Judgment

1.      Present appeal is directed against the orders dt. 25.02.2014 passed by the Ld. District Forum (Central) Kashmere Gate, Delhi.  Vide impugned orders the HDFC Bank (OP) was directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 60,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation charges. 
2.      Facts in brief are that the complainant availed a Used Car Loan against the Maruti WagonR for a sum of Rs. 1.50 Lac.  Loan amount was to be repaid in 36 EMI’s of Rs. 5,200/- each.  Complainant pleaded that the loan account was settled after he repaid the amount in full.  OP bank issued him an NOC by terminating the loan agreement bearing no. 2698640 on 20.06.2011.  Despite this the name of the complainant continued to remain in the list of defaulters and appeared on the website of CIBIL.  Complainant suffered as his name appeared in the list of defaulters.  He prayed for directions to the OP bank to remove his name from the said list and award him compensation.
3.      OP did not appear in the Ld. District Forum despite service of notice of the complaint. He was proceeded against ex-parte vide orders dt. 02.07.2012.  On the basis of evidence led by the complainant Ld. Trial Forum observed as under:

“Once, the bank terminated the loan agreement and issued certificate for removal of its hypothecation then it amounts that the bank has received the repayment of the loan amount to its satisfaction.  The bank, who advanced the loan was at liberty to accept the repayment of lesser amount or give up its claim regarding any penalty imposed by it upon the holder of the account.

Once, the loan agreement is terminated by the bank then it becomes its duty to inform the CIBIL that the holder of the loan account was not a defaulter and that loan agreement stood satisfied.  By not doing so, the bank failed in its duty due to which the complainant suffered as his name appeared in the list of defaulters in the site of CIBIL.  It has caused deficiency in service on the part of the bank.”

4.      In his present appeal the appellant has vaguely stated that there was no question of any ‘deficiency of service’ on his part as he had acted in due course of banking activity.  Next contention of the appellant is that the complainant made payment of instalments late.  Appellant has admitted that NOC was issued to the complainant after he had cleared the loan amount.  Contention of the appellant is that an NOC cannot constitute perfect credit history.
5.      We have heard the arguments addressed by the counsels for the parties at length.  Contention of the appellant is that NOC issued by the appellant bank did not entitle the complainant from being removed from CIBIL. Nothing has been placed on record by the appellant to show that the name of the complainant would continue in the list of CIBIL even after the clearance of his loan. We, therefore, do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the Ld. District Forum.  Appeal is hence dismissed.
6.      Copy of the order be made available to the parties free of costs as per rules and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.
7.      FDR, if any, deposited by the appellant be released as per rules.

 

 

(Salma Noor)

Member

 

(N P Kaushik)

Member (Judicial)