District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bokaro

Date of Filing-04-07-2018

Date of final hearing-06-02-2023

 Date of Order-06-02-2023

Case No. 79/2018

Ram Bihari Prasad Singh, S/o Late Guru Ram,

Qr.no.- B/4, Government Residential Colony,

Chas Opposite Nagar Palika Office, Chas,

 District- Bokaro, Jharkhand

Vs.

1.M/s HDB Finansial Services Ltd.

    Reg. Office at Radihka, 2^nd Floor, Law Garden Road,

    Navrangpura, Ahmedabad -380009

    Having it Corprate Office at Ground Floor,

    Zenith House, Opposite Mahalaxmi Race Course,

    K.K. Marg Mahalaxmi, Mumbai-400034

 2. G. Ramesh, Managing Director,

      M/s HDB Financial Services Ltd.,

      Having it Corprate Office at Ground Floor,

      Zenith House, Opposite Mahalaxmi Race Course,

        K.K. Marg Mahalaxmi, Mumbai -400034

3. Pavin Kumar, Chief Executive Officer,

       M/s HDB Financial Services Ltd.,

      Having it Corprate Office at Ground Floor, Zenith House,

      Opposite Mahalaxmi Race Course, K.K. Marg

       Mahalaxmi, Mumbai- 400034

 4. Kalyan Das, Branch Manager,

       M/s HDB Financial Services Ltd.

      Agarwal Bhawan, 2^nd Floor, Bye Pass Road, Chas,

      Opposite HDFC Bank, P.O. & P.S. Chas, District- Bokaro  827013

 5. Pravin Singh, Loan Officer, M/s HDB Financial Services Ltd.

       at Agarwal Bhawan, 2^nd Floor, Bye Pass Road, Chas,

      Opposite HDFC Bank, P.O. & P.S. Chas, District- Bokaro 827013

                             Present:-

                             Shri Jai Prakash Narayan Pandey, President

        Shri Bhawani Prasad Lal Das, Member

                  Smt. Baby Kumari, Member

PER- J.P.N Pandey, President

Judgment-

1. Complainant has filed this case with prayer to direct the O.Ps. to pay Rs. 10,00,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1,00,000/- as litigation cost and to withdraw his name from CIBIL.
2. Complainant’s case in brief is that he obtained education loan from the O.P. HDB Financial Service Ltd. who agreed to pay loan Rs. 5,00,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum for the period of 5 years with EMI @ 12000/- per month. Accordingly papers were executed but only Rs. 4,63,428/- was disbursed instead of sanctioning the loan of Rs. 5,00,000/- fixing EMI Rs. 14,687/- due from 04.10.2017. Further case is that complainant was ready to return back that very loan amount which was for 48 months with interest @ 18% per annum instead of interest @ 12% for which request was made to take back said amount which was not done. Complainant has not utilized said amount for which he never agreed rather his signatures were obtained on unfilled forms. Further case is that O.Ps. intimated to pay Rs. 4,63,428/- through D.D. payable at Bokaro before 28.11.2017 but it was not prayer of the complainant rather he prayed for cancelation of loan which was not done and complainant never utilized said loan and due to paucity of fund son of the complainant was not admitted in repudiated educational institution causing loss to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000/-. Insptie of repeated requests matter was not settled hence this case has been filed.
3. W.S. has been filed by O.Ps. in which it has been disclosed that case is not maintainable before this Commission rather as per agreement between the parties all disputes are to be decided by the Arbitration. O.Ps. have denied the allegations against them and prayed for dismissal of the case.
4. At this place we would like to mention here that on 07.01.2022 an application has been filed by the complainant along with photo copy of the certified copy of the orders passed the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Arbitration Petition No. 873/2018 with Notice of Motion (L.) No. 2400/2018. On perusal of the application dt. 07.01.2022 and order passed by the Hon’ble Court it appears that matter related to this case has been considered in arbitration case before the Arbitration Tribunal and Award of the Arbitration Tribunal was challenged before the Hon’ble High Court but prayer of the complainant has not been allowed rather it has been dismissed on merit after hearing the complainant. In this way it is very much clear that facts related to this case have already been finally decided by the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay hence any discussion on the facts and law will amount to review the order of the Ho’ble High Court for which this Commission is having no jurisdiction.
5.  In view of above discussion this case is being disposed of in light of the orders passed by the Hon’ble iHHHHHigh Court.

(J.P.N. Pandey)

                                                                                      President

(B.P.L Das)

Sr. Member

                                                                               (Baby Kumari)

                                                Member