The complainant smt. Reena Srivastva  has filed this complaint petition against  Manager, HDFC Bank Ltd. Chhoti Saraiyagang   Muzaffarpur  and two others  for direction  to o.ps to  make payment  for maintenance cost of battery, tire etc.,  to get free her from- liability of  interest on pending  EMI, Rs. 60,000/- for mental and physical harassment and litigation cost.

The brief, facts of the case is that  the complainant  holds account no.-03441870000737 in the bank  of o.ps. The  further

case is that the husband of the complainant  had also run account no.- 03441000084598 & 5010010200/3148 in his time and the complainant is nominee in both the above account of her husband. The further case is that there is loan account in the name of complainant of the o.ps and the EMI of the said was paid from account no.- 03441000084598.  The further case is that in the month of April 2016, EMI of Rs. 10,297/- of the vehicle loan was paid. The further case is that on getting information about pending payment of EMI of aforesaid vehicle loan, the complainant  contacted to the o.ps and also sent a legal notice for necessary action. It has been further mentioned that the complainant  requested the o.ps by legal notice to  transfer the amount of account nos.- 03441000084598  and  50100102003148 in her account no.- 03441870000737 but no action was taken by the o.ps.

The complainant has filed the following documents with the complaint petition - Photocopy of Advocate Notice annexure-1, photocopy of statement  account of  A/C. No. 034410004598,  photocopy copy of loan A/C No.  21926045  which shows that the EMI of loan amount was being paid through cheque annexure-2.

On issuance of notices, the o.ps appeared  before the forum and filed their w.s. with prayer to dismiss the complaint petition  and to direct the complainant to make payment  of entire outstanding  amount due till date. It has been mentioned in the w.s. that the complaint petition  is false, frivolous, vexatious  and abuse of the process of this

forum. It has been further mentioned  in the w.s. that the complainant has not  disclosed any cause of action proceed against the  o.ps. It has been further mentioned that this  forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon dispute involved in the complaint in  as much as  it is not a consumer dispute and does not fall within the ambit of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It has been further mentioned that the complainant’s husband has availed auto loan for the purchase of the vehicle bearing model no.- TATA Indigo ECSLS from the o.ps bank. It has been further mentioned that the law is well settled  that where relationship of the parties  is that of debtor  and creditor, as in the instant case , the Consumer Protection Act 1986  does not and cannot apply and as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is an admitted fact that the complainant is nominee in the account of her husband. The photocopy of loan agreement has been annexed as annexure-A. Copy of statement of account dated 19-06-2018 of complainant has been annexed as annexure-B.  It has been further mentioned that in this case the barrower is deceased and the nominee wishes to settle the account by waving of charges and paying  the principal  outstanding amount as set procedure is to be followed and the certain formalities are to be fulfilled. It has  been further mentioned that the complainant  never approached to bank to fulfill the formalities and the procedure and didn’t  pay the heed to the request of the bank due to which the o.ps bank was unable to cater  the request of the complainant. It has been

further mentioned that the o.p. replied to the legal notice dated 10-02-2018 vide reply notice dated 27-02-2018. Photocopy of legal notice dated 27-02-2018 has been annexed as annexure-C. It has been further mentioned in the w.s. that the o.p bank is ready to settle the amount of the account holder on the request of the complainant at the principal out standing amount and is also willing to waive off the charges taking into  consideration  the fact that the account holder has expired. It has been further mentioned that for proceeding with the settling of the account of the principal amount only by the legal heirs, the opposite party bank informed the complainant that certain formalities need to be completed before the account is settled at the principal outstanding amount.

          On behalf of complainant, no evidence has been adduced.

          On behalf of o.ps o.p w-1  Nishant Kr.  has been examined on affidavit.

          It is an admitted fact that  complainant’s husband Ram Krishna Srivastva  had account bearing no- 03441000085498 and 50100102003148 in o.ps company in which the complainant  is nominee. It is   also an admitted fact that the complainant’s husband  had  taken a auto loan of Rs. 4,50,000/- and bearing loan account  No.- 21926045 in the o.p’s bank. The complainant has stated in the complaint petition that  EMI of Rs. 10,297/- of the aforesaid loan was

being paid from the account no. 03441000084598. The further case of the complainant  is that on the death of her husband she informed the o.ps through legal notice and requested to transfer the aforesaid amount of the above account of her husband in her account bearing no.-03441870000737 but he o.ps  didn’t pay any heed.

          She has annexed the legal notices sent to the Managers of H.D.F.C bank Ltd. Chhoti Sariyaganj Muzaffarpur and Brahampura, Muzaffarpur as annexure-1.  On the other hand,  the o.ps have stated in para-3 at page-5 of his w.s. that  in the case the Borrower is deceased and the nominee wishes to settle the account by waiving  of the charges and paying  the principal outstanding amount, a set procedure is to be  followed and certain  formalities are to be fulfilled. It has been further mentioned in the w.s. that it is quite unfortunate that the complainant never approached the Bank to fulfill the formalities and the procedure and  did  not pay heed  to the request of the bank due to which the o.ps bank was unable to cater to the request of the complainant.  To support the above facts of the w.s., the o.ps have examined o.p.W-1 Sri Nishant Kr.  Authorized person of H.D.F.C Bank who has supported the above fact in his examination in chief filed on affidavit. On the other hand the complainant has not filed any evidence on the point that she ever approached to the H.D.F.C. Bank to fulfill the formalities and the process.

On behalf of complainant only photocopy of statement of  account no.- 03441000085498 of Ram Krishna Srivastva has been filed  which shows that  and loan account was being paid by cheque and it was paid  till 05-04-2016. The complainant has mentioned in her written argument that despite the  notice of death of the deceased/borrower convened personally several times, the o.p bank continued to realize the   EMIS from the SB Account through cheques up to April 2016 (7 such payments). The complainant has not examined herself before the forum and not filed any deposition on affidavit to support the above facts that she approached several times to the H.D.F.C. Bank.

          The o.ps have annexed annexure-C to show that  he had sent reply to the notice dated 10-02-2018 in which the o.ps have also mentioned above facts to follow the process for settling the account by waiving charges  in case of both the accounts.

          So, on perusal of entire material available on record, we find that there is no deficiency on the part of o.p bank rather there is deficiency in service on part of complainant herself and she has not fulfilled the required formalities and as such the case of the complainant fails.

          Accordingly, the claim petition is dismissed.