STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                        UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

1]     HDFC Bank Limited, Business Banking “P” Wing, 4th Floor, Tax Centre, 26A, Narayan Properties, Chandiwali, Andheri [East], Mumbai, through its Chairman/Managing Director.

[2]    HDFC Bank Limited, Plot No. 28, Industrial Area, Ph-I, Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager/ Incharge.

[3]    HDFC Bank Limited, Plot No. 28, Industrial Area, Ph-I, Chandigarh through its representative/ Agent Sh.Sanjeev Sharma.

                                        .…Appellants/Opposite Parties 

                                Vs.

[1]    Kanwal Ohri s/o Late Sh.H.C.Ohri, r/o #379, Sector 7, Panchkula. 

[2]    Meena Ohri w/o Kanwal Ohri, r/o #379, Sector 7, Panchkula. 

[3]    Gaurav Ohri s/o Kanwal Ohri, r/o #379, Sector 7, Panchkula. 

                                        …. Respondents/Complainants. 

BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT

                MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

Argued by:    Sh.Sandeep Suri, Advocate for the appellants.

                      Sh.Neeraj Sobti, Advocate for the respondents.

                                                ----

MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

1.                    This appeal is directed against the order dated 21.10.2011 rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which it allowed the complaint filed by the complainants (now respondents) and directed the Opposite Parties (now appellants) as under:-

     “In view of the foregoings, we are of the considered opinion that the complaint must succeed and it is accordingly allowed. The OPs are directed to refund the amount of Rs.97,064/- to the complainants and Rs.10,000/- as compensation & litigation costs, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt copy of this order; failing which they shall be liable to pay the amount of Rs.97,064/- along with interest @12% p.a. from 20.7.2010 till its actual realization besides paying Rs.10,000/- as compensation & litigation costs”.    

2.                    The facts, in brief, are that, the complainants had availed of loan against their property (#379, Sector 7, Panchkula) from GE Money Financial Services Limited for a sum of Rs.47,66,000/- on interest @13.23% p.a. and Rs.15,04,000/- on interest @ 12.56% p.a. It was further stated that OP No.3 approached the Complainants in June, 2010, and allured them that Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 would take over their original loan @11% p.a. and that they (Complainants) had to pay 2% towards foreclosure charges over the total outstanding loan amount with GE Money and thereafter, their original title deeds, deposited with GE Money, shall be received by Opposite Parties No. 1 & 2, on their behalf. Believing the version of Opposite Party No.3, the Complainants gave their consent for the same. Thereafter, Opposite Party  No.3 informed them that as per verification, they had to pay a lump-sum amount of Rs.61,36,000/- i.e. (Rs.46,70,000/- & Rs.14,66,000/-) to GE Money including 2% foreclosure charges. It was further stated that on 17.07.2010, Opposite Party  No.3 informed the Complainants that Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, on the basis of verification from GE Money, had sanctioned a loan of Rs.88,00,000/-, out of which Rs.61,36,000/- would be disbursed, in favour of GE Money towards closure of their loan accounts, and the balance amount of Rs.26,64,000/- would be disbursed to them directly. Opposite Party  No.3 further took Cheque No. 015350, dated 17.07.2010 for a sum of Rs.97,064/- from the Complainants towards 1% processing charges including service tax i.e. Rs.9,064/- for a loan amount of Rs.88.00 lacs. It was further stated that on 12.8.2010, Opposite Party  No.3, informed that Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, sent two pay orders amounting to Rs.46,70,000/- & Rs.14,46,000/- (total Rs.61,36,000/-) in favour of GE Money, but GE Money refused to accept the same, and demanded 4% foreclosure charges, over the due amount. It was further stated that the Complainants requested Opposite Party  No.3 to cancel the loan agreement (Ann.C-2) and refund Rs.97,064/- received by him, towards processing fee vide Annexure C-1. Thereafter, vide letter dated 1.9.2010, Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, cancelled the loan vide Ann.C-5, but did not refund the processing charges.  It was further stated that the Opposite Parties, were deficient, in rendering service, as also, indulged into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainants, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the “Act” only), was filed.

3.                    In their written reply, the Opposite Parties, stated that since the Complainants were getting a better rate of interest, they applied for transfer of the loan, from GE Money Financial Services Ltd. to HDFC Bank Ltd.. It was denied that the Complainants were told that GE Money shall only charge 2% as foreclosure charges. It was further stated that as per the instructions of the Complainants and for the purpose of taking over of the said loan, a cheque was prepared out of the total loan amount, sanctioned by the Opposite Parties, in favour of GE Money, and the remaining amount was to be paid into the Complainants’ account. It was further stated that as per the terms and conditions of the financer, the Complainants, were liable to pay processing charges amounting to Rs.97,064/-. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties had completed all the requirements, as were required to be done, on their part, for the disbursal of the loan to the complainants. However, the Complainants refused to accept the same and hence, the Bank had no option, but to cancel the loan. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties were neither deficient, in rendering service, nor indulged into unfair trade practice.

4.                    The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.

5.                    After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence and record of the case, the District Forum, allowed the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the instant order. 

6.                    Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellants/Opposite Parties.

7.                    We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and, have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 

8.                    The Counsel for the appellants/Opposite Parties submitted that the complainants were interested in transferring their loans from GE Money Financial Services Ltd. to HDFC Bank Ltd as they were getting a better rate of interest. He further submitted that the Complainants were never told that GE Money Financial Services Limited shall only charge 2% as foreclosure charges.   He further submitted that the Opposite Parties rightly charged a sum of Rs.97,064/- as processing charges but the complainants refused to accept the loan, hence they were not entitled to the refund of foreclosure charges. It was further stated that the order of the District Forum, being illegal, is liable to be set aside.

9.                    The Counsel for the respondents/ complainants submitted that the complainants availed of the loan in the sum of Rs.47,66,000/- on interest @13.23% p.a. and Rs.15,04,000/- on interest @ 12.56% p.a. against their property from GE Money Financial Services Limited. He further submitted that in  June 2010, Opposite Party No.3 approached the complainants and allured that Opposite Parties no.1 and 2 would take over their original loan  with interest @ 11% and they had to pay 2% towards the foreclosure charges over the total outstanding loan amount with GE Money Financial Services Limited and thereafter the original title deeds deposited with GE Money Financial Services Limited, shall be received by them on behalf of the complainants. It was further submitted that on the assurance of Opposite Party No.3, the complainants gave their consent for the same and Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 directly disbursed the loan to GE Money Financial Services Limited through two pay orders amounting to Rs.46,70,000/- and Rs.14,46,000/- (totaling Rs.61,36,000/-) which included 2% foreclosure charges also but it refused to accept the same and demanded 4% foreclosure charges. Faced with this situation, the complainants requested Opposite Party No.3 to cancel the loan agreement (Annexure C-2) and sought refund of Rs.97,064/- paid by them as processing fee. He further submitted that the Opposite Parties vide letter (Annexure C-5) cancelled the loan agreement, but illegally withheld the processing charges.

10.                 Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion, that the District Forum rightly passed the order by placing reliance upon the loan agreement, Annexure C-2, executed between the complainants and the Opposite Parties and the letter dated 12.08.2010 (Annexure C-4) issued by the HDFC Bank. According to Clause No.4 under the heading Disbursement of the said loan agreement, it was the responsibility/liability of the Opposite Parties, to adjust the initial loan of the complainants, with GE Money Financial Services Ltd. which they failed to do and they (complainants) were compelled to get the loan agreement cancelled. By not refunding the amount of process fee to the complainants, without rendering any service to them, the Opposite Parties were not only deficient,  in  rendering service, but also indulged into unfair trade practice.   With these observations, we are of the considered opinion that the District Forum rightly allowed the complaint.  The order of the District Forum, being legal and valid, is liable to be upheld.

11.                 The order passed by the District Forum, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.

12.                 For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.

13.                  Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

14.                 The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.                                                                          Sd/-

18 .04.2012                                        [JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER]

                                                                                 PRESIDENT         

Sd/-

                                                                                  [NEENA SANDHU]

                                                                                                MEMBER

cmg

STATE COMMISSION

F.A.No.53/2012

Argued by:

 Sh.Sandeep Suri, Advocate for the applicants/appellants.

Sh.Neeraj Sobti, Advocate for the respondents.

                                ----

 Dated the  18^th April,2011

                                ORDER

1.                    This  order shall dispose of an application for condonation of delay of 78 days (as per office report 74 days) in filing the appeal, on the ground, that  certified copy of the order dated 21.10.2011 was received by the applicants/appellants on 27.10.2011 but, unfortunately, on account of a death in the family of Sh.Rajesh Bhatia, Manager Legal, the order obtained by the applicants/appellants was misplaced  in the office and resultantly, he failed to inform his seniors about the same.  It was further stated that the said mistake came to the notice of Manager Legal, when he received the intimation from the Counsel, that an execution application had been  filed in the case. Thereafter, the approval was obtained from the concerned authorities of Regional Office at Delhi and the Head Office at Mumbai. The Counsel for the applicants-appellants submitted that the delay was bona fide and on account of the reasons, mentioned above, and he prayed for the condonation of delay by placing reliance upon the case titled as Parimal Vs. Veena @ Bharti,  Civil Appeal no.1467 of 2011, decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 08.02.2011

2.                    The Counsel for the respondent, opposed the application, by filing reply thereto. He submitted that the delay was willful and intentional, and, as such, there was no sufficient cause to condone the same.

3.                    After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion, that the application deserves to be accepted, for the reasons, to be recorded hereinafter. As per the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the appeal was required to be filed within thirty days, from the date of receipt of  the certified copy of the order, passed by the District Forum but the present appeal was filed with  a delay of 78 days.  However, it is settled principle of law, that every lis should be decided, on merits, than by resorting to hyper-technicalities. The procedure is, in the ultimate, the handmaid of justice, meant to advance the cause thereof, than to thwart the same.   When the procedural wrangles, and the substantial justice, are pitted against each other,  then the latter will prevail over the former. The application is duly supported by an affidavit of Sh.Rajesh Bhatia, Manager of HDFC Bank Ltd. which disclosed sufficient cause, for the condonation of delay. There was, thus, no intentional or willful delay, in filing the appeal, on the part of appellants/applicants.  Otherwise also, the applicants-appellants are not going to gain anything, by filing an appeal, at a belated stage. Finding sufficient cause, the delay in filing the appeal, requires to be condoned.  

4.                    For the reasons recorded above, the application for the condonation of delay, in filing the appeal is accepted. The delay is condoned.

5.                    Appeal is admitted.  

6.                    Vide our detailed order of the even date, recorded separately, this appeal  has been dismissed with no order, as to costs, and the order of the District Forum is upheld.  

Sd/-                                  sd/-

(NEENA SANDHU)         (JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER)            

    MEMBER                         PRESIDENT                                           

cmg.