Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/345/2013

HDFC BANK LIMITED, AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAVI KUMAR - Opp.Party(s)

B.R. SANKARALINGAM

01 Mar 2022

ORDER

IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

 

                Present:   Hon’ble THIRU. JUSTICE. R. SUBBIAH                     :     PRESIDENT

                                  Tmt. Dr. S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI                          :      MEMBER

 

F.A. No. 345 of 2013

(Against the order passed in C.C. No.261/2009 dated 28.06.2010 on the file of the D.C.D.R.F. Coimbatore.

 

Tuesday, the 1^st day of March 2022

1. M/s.HDFC Bank Ltd.,

    Rep. by its Authorised Signatory

    Nanjammas, No.1/180-2

    Mettupalayam Road,

    Thudiyalur, Coimbatore – 34.

 

2. M/s.HDFC Bank Ltd.,

    Rep. by Authorised Signatory

    HDFC Bank House

    Senapati Bapet Marg,

    Lower Parel (West)

    Mumbai – 13.

 

3. Mrs. V.Meenakshi

    Authorised Signatory

    M/s.HDFC Bank Ltd.   

    Nanjammas, No.1/180-2

    Mettupalayam Road,

    Thudiyalur, Coimbatore – 34.

 

4. Jagadish

    M/s.HDFC Bank Ltd.   

    Nanjammas, No.1/180-2

    Mettupalayam Road,

    Thudiyalur

    Coimbatore – 34.                                               .. Appellants/ Opposite Parties

- Vs –

     Ravi Kumar

     No.C-7 Cheran Nagar

     G.N. Mill Post

     Coimbatore -641 029                                        .. Respondent/ Complainant

   

    Counsel for Appellants / Opposite Parties         : M/s. Pass Associates

    Counsel for the Respondent/ Complainant         : No representation

                                                                            

This appeal is coming before us for final hearing on 16.02.2022 and on hearing the arguments of the counsel for the appellant/ opposite parties and on perusing the material records, this Commission made the following :-

O R D E R

R.SUBBIAH J., PRESIDENT

1.        This appeal has been filed by the Appellant / Opposite parties under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as against the order dated 28.06.2010 made in C.C. No.261 of 2009 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Coimbatore, allowing the complaint filed by the respondent / complainant herein.

 

2.  The respondent is the complainant and the appellants are the opposite parties.  For the sake of convenience, parties will be referred as per their ranking in the complaint.

 

3.    The factual background culminating in this appeal is as follows:  The case of the Complainant is that he is working in a private company.  The Appellant/ First Opposite party is a company doing banking business, granting loans including jewel loan.  The complainant availed loan, by pledging a gold chain of 8 sovereign (pawn) with the first opposite party and received a sum of Rs.48,500/- under loan account No.139796, to meet out his urgent financial commitments.  The third and fourth opposite parties had verified the quality, weight and other details about the jewel and granted loan, by deducting an amount of Rs.500/- towards processing fee and documentation charges, apart from taking an interest @ 16.5% for three months, upon the loan amount granted.  After expiry of three months period, the complainant approached the 1^st, 3^rd and 4^th opposite parties for extending the time for closing the loan account.  The opposite parties asked the complainant to pay monthly interest and continue the loan account.  Further, they have informed that the account will be closed, when the full amount including the interest, is settled by him fully.  The complainant accepted to pay the interest for the further period.  During the 3^rd week of March 2009, while he approached the 1^st, 3^rd and 4^th opposite parties, they asked the complainant to close the loan account by next month i.e., April 2009, because the year ending work was going on, in the Bank.  When the complainant approached the opposite parties to close the account by receiving the principal and interest amount, the opposite parties have not chosen to do so.  On 24.04.2009, the complainant again approached the opposite parties and expressed his readiness and intention to close the loan account.  But, no proper reply was given by the opposite parties.  Later on, the complainant was shocked and surprised to receive a letter dated 30.04.2009 along with a cheque drawn in favour of the complainant for a sum of Rs.29,092.29, after deducting the loan liability, being the balance amount from the sale proceeds of the jewel, which was pledged with the opposite parties.  No prior notice was sent to the complainant by the opposite parties about the sale of the jewels pledged with them.  Due to the irresponsible attitude of the opposite parties, the complainant had suffered financially and underwent mental agony.  As per the prevailing market rate of gold, the value of the jewels pledged is more than Rs.1,50,000/-.  But the opposite parties have sold the jewel to a lesser amount towards the loan liability.  Since the jewels have been sold without prior intimation to the complainant, there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.  Therefore, the complainant has come forward with the present complaint, for the following reliefs:-

1. Direct the opposite parties to return the gold jewels weighing 8 sovereigns (pawn) which was pledged with the opposite parties for availing loan and close the loan account by receiving the full amount liable to be payable to the opposite parties by the complainant.
2. Direct to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for mental and physical agony.
3. Direct to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for unfair trade practice and deficiency in service caused to the complainant.
4. Direct to pay costs.

 

4.   In the counter statement filed by the opposite parties, it is stated that the complainant had availed jewel loan from the opposite parties, but the complainant has not paid the dues properly and was identified as a defaulter. He was given enough time to repay the loan borrowed but he had not utilised those chances.  The loan has to be renewed once in three months, in case the loan is not closed.  Only on renewing the loan, the loan account may be continued further.  Or else, the complainant has no option other than to close the loan and redeem the jewels.  There is no provision to repay the jewel loan in EMI system.  Either the loan must be closed or renewed to a new loan, in new account number.  The complainant has to comply with the formalities to renew the loan but he has not cared to do so.  He has not approached the Bank as stated in paragraph 4 of the complaint to close the loan.  He was having the option to renew the loan and if capable of closing the loan, he could have closed the loan.  But he has not done so. Instead, he was putting the blame on the officials as if they advised to pay the monthly interest and to continue the loan, which is not possible in jewel loan.  The complainant has not paid any monthly interest. The opposite parties have sent notice to the complainant before the sale of pledged jewels.  It is wrong to say that no notice was given and he had no knowledge about the sale.  The claim of the complainant that the auction was illegal cannot be accepted.  The auction was fairly conducted only after obtaining the valuation certificate from the appraiser.  Hence, the opposite parties have not committed any deficiency of service and thus sought for dismissal of the complaint.

 

5.  In order to prove the case, on the side of the complainant proof affidavit and Exhibits A1 to A13 were marked.  On the side of the opposite parties two documents were filed and marked as Ex.B1 and Ex.B2, along with proof affidavit.

 

6.  The District Forum, after analyzing the entire records,  allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties to return the jewel weighing 8 sovereign after receiving the principle amount with interest at the rate of 16.5% per annum and pay a compensation of Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.3000/- towards cost.  Aggrieved over the same, the present appeal has been filed by the opposite parties.

 

7.  Heard the submission of the counsel for the appellant and perused the material available on records. No representation for the complainant. 

 

8.   When the matter is taken up for consideration, the counsel for the complainant submitted that the District Forum had fixed the liability on the part of the opposite parties mainly on the ground, before bringing the jewels to auction sale, notice was not given to the correct address of the complainant, with an intention to deprive the opportunity to the complainant to redeem the jewel by paying the loan amount with interest.  Counsel for the appellant submitted that the opposite parties had sent notice dated 16.03.2009 to the complainant to the address available with them but the same was returned unserved, which is evident from Ex.B1.  So, it is incorrect to state that notice was sent purposely to a wrong address with an intention to deprive the opportunity to the complainant to redeem the jewels.  Therefore, the order passed by the District Forum fixing the deficiency of service on the opposite parties is liable to be set aside.  But, we are not inclined to accept this submission.  On perusal of the records, we find that some of the correspondences were sent to the address “C.Ravikumar, S/o.C.Rajamanickam, Cheran Nagar, GN Mills Post, Coimbatore- 30”.  But the notice for auction sale, Ex.B1, has been sent to “R.Ravikumar, 16 NGR Street, Ramaswamy Nagar, Goundampalayam, Coimbatore -30”.  Even assuming if the complainant is not present in the address, they ought to have given paper publication in the newspaper before the auction sale.  Therefore, certainly there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.

 

9.  Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the District Forum and hence the order dated 28.06.2010 made in C.C. No.261 of 2009 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Coimbatore, is confirmed.  Consequently, the Appeal is dismissed.

 

 

S.M.LATHA MAHESWARI                                                           R.SUBBIAH

         MEMBER                                                                                PRESIDENT