Haryana

StateCommission

A/582/2016

HDFC BANK LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SHAKTI SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

HARJIT SINGH KATHPAL

08 Aug 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                               First Appeal No.582 of 2016

                                                          Date of Institution: 27.07.2016

                                                               Date of Decision: 08.08.2016

 

HDFC Bank LTD. Branch Office Rewari, registered office at HDFC Bank House, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel- (West), Mumbai-400013 and Regional Office at HDFC Bank House, Plot No.28, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh through its Legal Manager Mr.Rajesh Bhatia.

…..Appellant

Versus

 

Shakti Singh son of Sh.Dharampal resident of Mastpur, Tehsil & District Rewari.

 

                                      …..Respondent

 

CORAM:             Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.

                             Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                                                                                                                        

Present:              Ms.Ramandeep Kaur, Advocate counsel for appellant.

                            

 

                                                   O R D E R

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

                             This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 07.04.2016 vide which the appellants/opposite parties (in short ‘O.Ps’)  were directed to issue No Objection Certificate (in short ‘NOC’) besides paying compensation etc.

2.                          It was alleged by the complainant that he got one motor cycle financed from O.P.No.1.  He repaid the entire amount and receipt No.9250537 dated 21.04.2008 was issued by the OPs.  Later on, he received letter dated 06.11.2010 to deposit Rs.16421/- whereas he was not liable to pay any amount. He requested OPs to issue NOC but the same was declined on 02.05.2011.  Hence, the complaint.

3.                         In reply, it was alleged by OPs that receipt was issued on 21.04.2008 and Rs.8500/- were shown in the statement of account.  The loan was to be repaid in 24 equated EMIs of Rs.1250/- each. Eight cheques issued by the complainant were cleared and remaining 16 cheques were dishonoured for want of appropriate funds. On 23.04.2008 Rs.12522/- were due towards complainant on account of overdue charges, late payment charges and cheque bouncing charges. However, after receiving payment on 23.04.2008 the EMIs were not cleared. Objections about limitation, locus standi, jurisdiction etc. were also raised.

4.                         After hearing both the parties learned District Forum passed the aforesaid order.

5.                         Feeling aggrieved therefrom OPs have preferred this appeal wherein it was alleged that original receipt No.9258537 was issued for Rs.1250/- only. The complainant forged receipt produced by him. On 23.04.2008 Rs.12522/- were due towards him as mentioned above, so there was no reason to issue receipt as full and final after payment of Rs.6423/-. When he did not make entire payment  notice was issued to him to pay Rs.16421/-. Learned District Forum did not appreciate the facts properly.

6.                          Arguments heard. File perused.

7.                          Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that receipt No.9258537 dated 21.04.2008 was issued for Rs.1250/- and not for Rs.6423/- as full and final certificate. The receipt produced by the complainant was forged, so it cannot be presumed that matter was settled as full and final and learned District Forum has wrongly relied upon this receipt.

8.                          This argument is devoid of any force. For ready reference para No.3 of reply is reproduced:

“3.That in reply to paragraph No.3 of the complaint, it is submitted that the contents of paragraph are wrong and denied and not admitted. The entire amount has not been paid by the complainant and the details has been provided in the enclosed statement of account. The issue of receipt dated 21.04.2008 is admitted being matter of record and the entry of the payment Rs.8500/- is duly reflecting in the statement of account appended hereto.”

 

As per this reply, it is admitted that receipt, reference of which is given in para No.3 of the complaint, was issued. Averments raised in para No.3  are not disputed. It was alleged that at the time of arguments that receipt issued on 21.04.2008 was pertaining to Rs.1250/- only. If it was pertaining to Rs.1250/- only then how Rs.800/- were debited in his account. The appellant has miserably failed to  prove this fact.  The receipt produced before learned District Forum is bearing the signatures of authorized signatory of the appellant. It is nowhere, alleged that this receipt was not bearing the signatures of their employees or Mahesh and Sudhir were not it’s employees.  When this receipt was produced in evidence, OPs could have denied the same or could have produced evidence that said receipts were not bearing the signatures of their authorized signatory or they were fake. Now, it cannot be alleged that this receipt was fake. When once the receipt was issued for full and final settlement, the appellant cannot raise any objection. 

9.                         Findings of learned District Forum are well reasoned, based on law and facts and cannot be disturbed. Resultantly, appeal fails and is hereby dismissed in limine.

 

August 8^th, 2016          Urvashi Agnihotri                                R.K.Bishnoi,                                                               Member                                              Judicial Member                                                         Addl. Bench                                        Addl.Bench