Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/469/2023

BALDEEP SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SHRI UDAY KOTAK - Opp.Party(s)

GAGANDEEP SINGH

24 Oct 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/469/2023
Date of Institution	:	26/9/2023
Date of Decision	:	24/10/2024

 

Baldeep Singh S/o Sh. Major Singh R/o House No.2186/3, Super Enclave, Sector 49-C, Chandigarh 160047.

 

Complainant...

Versus

 

1. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, Registered office at 27BKC, C27, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra €, Mumbai, 400051 through its authorized representative Shri Uday Kotak.

 

2. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, Branch office SCO No. 153-155, Madhya Marg, Sector 9/C, Chandigarh through its manager or authorized representative Vishal Gulati.

 

3. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, Office at Zone IV, 5th Floor, Kotak Infinity Park, Off. Western Express Highway, General AK Vaidya Marg, Malad (E), Goregaon Mulund, Link Road, Malad (E) Mumbai 400097 through its manager or authorized representative.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                

ARGUED BY	:	Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate for Complainant.
	:	Sh.Mohit Sarin, Advocate for OPs.

Per Suresh Kumar Sardana, Member

1.      Averments are that the complainant is having loan accounts with the OPs and the complainant was an employee of OP No.1 from 10.05.2007 to 25.03.2023 as a Chief Manager. In the year 2022 the complainant decided to go abroad with his family for a better future of his family and the complainant and his family got a visa to Canada. The complainant moved his resignation dated 21.12.2021 to the OP No.1 and the same was accepted by the OP No.1 vide Relieving Letter dated 25.03.2023 and the OP never raised any objection to go abroad (Annexure C-1). The complainant availed two personal loan facilities for the said purpose and a credit card facility was also availed from the O.P. Bank (Annexure C-2 & Annexure C-3). Complainant started paying the EMI's of the loan and credit card as per schedule and there was no default. However, to the utter shock and dismay of the complainant on 29.12.2021 when the complainant was in Canada, OP No.1 took unilateral decision to freeze the saving account of the complainant without his information and consent. Not only the debit facility was freezed but the deposits were also freezed and the complainant could not even deposit the money in his account, restraining him to deposit the requisite amount for loan installment. The installments for both the loan accounts were duly deducted from the account of the complainant on 02.12.2021 and the next installment was due on 02.01.2022 but the OP No.1 issued loan recall notices (Annexure C-4 & C-5) for both the loans to the Complainant. The loan was to be repaid in 60 EMI's and last installment being due in year 2026. The loan recall notices were issued without there been a single default in repayment and even before the next due date fixed for debit of installment. Complainant duly sent e-mail (Annexure C-6) to the O.Ps for unfreezing the accounts, stating that he is regularly paying the installments but they didn't oblige. The OPs credited the saving account with Rs.52.616/- on 24.03.2022 and Rs.4,02,940/- on 29.03.2022 as gratuity etc. Complainant had requested that amount of installment be deducted from the said amount but it was not done thereafter suddenly on 25.04.2022 the amount of Rs.54,000.20 paise and Rs.1,13,674.90 paise was deducted from saving account and credited into loan account. This could have been done earlier but they intentionally did so to harass the complainant and put him to financial loss (Annexure C-7). Complainant comes back to India on 16.06.2022 to settle the issue and in that course he dropped his plan for settlement in Canada and suffered huge financial loss. The complainant visited the office of OPs with repeated requests to unfreeze the account and settle the matter but they failed to do so and remained adamant and the proceedings are going on against the complainant regarding 138 and arbitration. Hence is the present complaint.
2.     OPs contested the consumer complaint filed their written reply and stated that after availing the second financial assistance from the OPs, on event of default in repayment of the monthly installments of the Loan the act and conduct of the complainant became doubtful and suspicious in as much as the complainant remained irregular in the repayment of the loan amount as the installment No.8 bounced on 07.01.2022 on the first instance. Thereafter, the loan accounts of the complainant got irregular and he remained negligent in following the terms and conditions of the loan agreement. An amount of Rs.10,16,714/- is still due and payable by the complainant to the OPs as on 31.10.2023 in Loan Account bearing number SPLN-63710441. Similarly, amount of Rs.4,83,899/- is still due and payable by the complainant to the OPs as on 31.10.2023 in Loan Account bearing number SPLN-64666275 (Annexure R-6 & R-7, respectively), which clearly shows that the complainant had not adhered the repayment discipline as per agreed terms and condition of the Loan cum facility Agreement, thus the Bank was forced to initiate appropriate recovery measures against the complainant by adopting due process of law thus the action taken by the OPs by adopting due process of law cannot be held illegal and harassment to the Complainant as such the present Complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is further stated that the complainant without following the standard protocols of the bank had mala fidely to run away from his legal liability to repay the loan amount had deliberately left for abroad on 18.12.2021 and that too without informing the OPs. Denying all other allegations made in the complaint a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3.     No rejoinder was filed by the complainant.
4.     Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5.     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case.
6.     The main grievance of the complainant is that the OPs freezed his saving account illegally due to which the loan EMIs could not be paid which caused him lot of mental & physical harassment.
7.     The stand of OPs is that the complainant was made aware of the terms & conditions of the loan agreements and after carefully understanding the same, he signed the said declaration. It is observed from the documents on record that complainant after availing two loans, left India for Canada and he did not inform about the same i.e. change of address to the Bank for the loan accounts.
8.     Complainant stated that he was working in the same Bank as Chief Manager at the time of availing of the loan amount and while he submitted the resignation, he intimated the bank that he is leaving for Canada and so, the bank was aware of the fact about his leaving for Canada. We do not agree with this stand taken by the complainant as the processing of resignation is the responsibility of Personnel Deptt or that of HRD (Human Resource Department), where in loan processing/availing is done by loan branch. While he himself was working as Chief Manager in that bank, he should have made it very clear in the resignation letter about his availing of loans furnishing an account numbers and his movement to Canada or should have intimated the loan branch about the same against the loan account numbers but complainant has failed to adduce any such documentary evidence to that effect.
9.     Moreover, we reproduce here below clause 2.6 of the loan agreement.

    "Notwithstanding anything stated in this Agreement, the continuation of the Loan shall be at sole and absolute discretion of the Bank and the Borrower agrees that the Bank shall be entitled to, at any time, in its discretion and without assigning any reason, cancel/recall the Loan and call upon the Borrower to pay the Outstanding Balance. It is specified that the repayment schedule set out in Agreement Schedule is without prejudice to the Bank's right to recall the entire Loan and to demand payment of the Outstanding Balance(s). Any such demand by the Bank shall constitute sufficient notice of such cancellation/recall and upon such demand by the Bank, the Borrower shall pay forthwith the whole of the Outstanding Balance to the Bank without any delay or demur or protest or set-off or counterclaim".

 

         Hence, we do not agree with the contention raised by the complainant that loan amounts recalls by OPs are illegal.     

10.     In view of the aforesaid discussion and the reasons recorded hereinbefore, we do not find any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Accordingly, the consumer complaint, being meritless, is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
11.     Pending miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed of.
12.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

24/10/2024			[Pawanjit Singh]
Ls			President
			[Surjeet Kaur]
			Member
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana]
			Member