Delhi

StateCommission

FA/12/1079

HDFC BANK LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

KULRAJ SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

07 Jan 2016

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

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

Date of Decision:07.01.2016

First Appeal- 1079/2012

[Arising out of the order dated 10.09.2012 passed in Complainant Case No. 21/2010 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (Central), Kashmere Gate, Delhi]

HDFC Bank Ltd.,

having its Regd. Office at

HDFC Bank House,

Senapati Bapat Marg,

Lower Parel(West),

Mumbai 400013

 

And having its Delhi Office at

2^nd Floor, Express Building,

Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg,

New Delhi 110 002

 

And also at

Motia Khan,

Paharganj, Delhi.                                                         ….Appellant

Versus

Kulraj Singh,

Son of Late S. Gurbax Singh,

Resident of F-14/29, Model Town,

Delhi 110 009.

….Respondent

CORAM

Justice Veena Birbal, President

Salma Noor, Member

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

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

 

 

 

 

Justice Veena Birbal, President

 

1. This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, “the Act”) challenging the order dated 10.9.12 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum(Central), Kashmere Gate, Delhi (in short the “District Forum”) in Consumer Complaint No.21/2010.
2. Briefly the facts relevant for the disposal of the present appeal are as under:

The respondent herein i.e. complainant before the District Forum had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act stating therein that he had taken a car loan of Rs.5 lacs from appellant/OP bank in March, 2009 vide Auto Loan Account No.14493177.  Against the said loan, respondent/complainant purchased a car DL 3CBE 2833.  It was stated that the car was insured with M/s. Iffco Tokyo General Insurance Co. and the same was stolen on 3.7.09.  The respondent/complainant was paying monthly EMI of Rs.11,435/- to the appellant/OP towards repayment of loan.  He had paid EMIs from 5.4.09 to 5.10.09 i.e. total amount of Rs.80,045/-.  After the car was stolen, he had lodged a claim with Insurace Co.  The aforesaid Insurance Co. paid the entire insured amount of Rs.6 lacs to the appellant/OP bank on 29.9.09.  The bank credited the amount in his loan account and after deducting the outstanding amount of loan, the balance of Rs.1,25,401/- was paid to the respondent/complainant on 26.11.09 through ECS facility.

3. The grievance of the respondent/complainant before the District Forum was that the bank had sanctioned loan of Rs.5 lacs but disbursed the amount of Rs.4,96,240/- only.  It was also alleged that EMIs due on 5.10.09 and 5.11.09 of Rs.11,435/- each, Rs.2,318.75 as interest at termination, Rs.27,044.67 as prepayment penalty, Rs.450/- as cheque bounced charges and Rs.107/- as overdue charges i.e. in all, Rs.52,790.42 was wrongly charged from him.  Respondent/complainant had claimed an amount of Rs.52,790.42 & Rs.3,760/- as less amount disbursed out of loan amount be paid to him along with compensation and litigation expenses.
4. Appellant/OP bank had contested the claim by filing written version.  It was alleged that the bank debited EMIs till the time insurance claim was received and no extra amount was taken from respondent/complainant.  It was alleged that the respondent/complainant had signed the loan agreement and other charges were debited as per the terms and conditions of the loan agreement and there was no deficiency on its part and the complaint was liable to be dismissed.
5. Both the parties led evidence before the Ld. District Forum in the form of affidavits.
6. After hearing the Counsel for the complainant, the Ld. District Forum held that EMI for the month of October, 2009 became due on 5.10.09.  The said payment was received on 9.10.09 by the bank and therefore, EMI for the month of October, 2009 was not to be charged from the respondent/complainant.  Ld. District Forum also observed that the cheque of Rs.11,435/- for EMI for the month of November, 2009 was bounced, as such the bank had rightly charged the said amount including cheque bounce charges as well as overdue charges.  It was further held by the Ld. District Forum that the respondent/complainant was bound by the terms and conditions of the loan agreement and Rs.27,044.32 as prepayment charges were also rightly debited.  Ld. District Forum held that the bank had excessively charged Rs.13,754/- i.e. EMI for October, 2009 and charges towards interest.  The District Forum allowed the complaint to the aforesaid extent only and accordingly directed the appellant/OP bank to pay Rs.13,754/- with interest @ 10% from 24.11.09 till realization and Rs.5,000/- was granted towards litigation expenses.
7. Aggrieved with the aforesaid order, present appeal is filed.
8. It may be mentioned that the impugned order has not been challenged by respondent/complainant.
9. Ld. Counsel for the appellant has contended that the finding of the Ld. District Forum that the bank had already received EMI for the month of October, 2009 and as such the bank was not right in charging the same at the time of closure of loan account is contrary to the material on record.  It is contended that the EMI for the month of October, 2009 has not been charged double.  It is contended that bank deducted EMI till the time the insurance claim was received.  It is submitted that the appellant/OP had received Rs.6,17,500/- from the Insurance Co. on 19.11.09 and after adjusting the loan outstanding which included EMI for 5.11.09, the balance has already been refunded.  It is contended that appellant/OP has not charged any excess amount from the respondent/complainant. 
10. On the other hand, the stand of the respondent/complainant is that the impugned order has been passed after considering the entire material on record.  There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
11. We have considered the submission made and perused the material on record. 
12. The controversy in this appeal is as to whether the finding of the Ld. District Forum in holding that the bank was not right in charging EMI for the month of October, 2009 at the time of closure of the loan account is correct on the basis of material on record.
13. The stand of the appellant/OP is that the EMI for October, 2009 was not charged while calculating the loan outstanding from the respondent/complainant.  The details of calculations have been given by the appellant/OP which are as under:

“That the Amount of Rs.6,17,500/- (Rupees Six Lakh Seventeen Thousand Five Hundred Only) was received from the Insurance Company on 19.11.2009 and after the adjusting the loan, outstanding i.e. a sum of Rs.4,92,099/- (Rupees Four Lakh Ninety Two Thousand and Ninety Nine Only), the Appellant refunded the balance amount of Rs.1,25,401/- (Rupees One Lakh Twenty Five Thousand Four Hundred and One only) to the Respondent on 25.11.2009.  The calculation below shall give the clear understanding of the amount charged by the Appellant:

• EMI paid from 05.04.2009 to 05.10.2009;
• EMI for the month of 05.11.2009 dishonored for which Rs.450/- was charged as Cheque Bouncing Charges;
• Rs.6,17,500/- i.e. Insurance Amount received on 19.11.2009;
• Rs.4,92,099/- Loan Outstanding on 19.11.2009, the bifurcation of the same is as under:

 

• Principal Outstanding    :Rs.450,744.57p
  • EMI for 05.11.2009      :Rs.11,435/-
• CBC                           :Rs.450/-
  • Prepayment Penalty     :Rs.27,044.67p
  • Interest                     :Rs.2,318.75p
  • Overdue Charges        :Rs.107/-

_________________

TOTAL                       Rs.4,92,099.99p

                                                                                                _________________”

 

14. Above calculations show that the EMI for the month of October, 2009 has not been charged while calculating the loan outstanding.
15. Perusal of complaint shows that the respondent/complainant  has alleged that the bank has wrongly debited his account.  The details of amount, he has given, are as under:

“That since the Respondent had received the payment in September 2009 they have wrongly debited the Complainant’s account of

 

Rs.11,435/-           due on 5^th October 2009.

Rs.11,435/-           due on 5^th November 2009.

Rs.2,318/75p         as interest at termination.

Rs.  450/-              as Cheque bounce charges.

Rs.  107/-                      as overdue charges and an amount of

Rs.27,044/67p       as Prepayment Penalty

•  

Rs.52,790/42p               TOTAL AMOUNT”

•  

  

16. The insurance amount is received by the appellant/OP only in November, 2009 and not in September, 2009 as is alleged by respondent/complainant. The District Forum has given the finding that the bank has rightly charged the EMI for the month of November, 2009 as the Insurance Co. had given the amount only on 19.11.2009 to the appellant bank.  The said finding is not challenged by the respondent/complainant.  Perusal of the statement of account furnished by the bank show that the bank had not charged EMI for 5.10.2009 while calculating the loan outstanding as on 19.11.2009. Nothing has been placed on record by the respondent/complainant to show that the EMI for the month of October, 2009 has been charged double from him or that the EMI for October, 2009 is shown as outstanding.
17. In view of the above discussion, the finding of the District Forum that the payment of Rs.11,435/- towards EMI of October, 2009 has been excessively charged by appellant/OP is wrong.  The same is contrary to material on record.  The direction given for payment of aforesaid amount to respondent/complainant stands set aside. Rs.2,318.75 has been excessively charged  from respondent/complainant towards interest.  No justification for charging the same is given by appellant/OP.  Even award of interest @ 24% is also on higher side.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the same stands reduced to 12% per annum.  The appellant/OP shall pay to respondent/complainant Rs.2,318.75 with interest @ 12% from 24.11.09 till realization of the amount.  The impugned order stands modified accordingly.  The direction towards cost is upheld.
18. Appeal stands partly allowed.
19. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirement be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned

District Forum. The record of the District Forum be sent forthwith.  Thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Justice Veena Birbal)

President

 

 

(Salma Noor)

Member