Delhi

StateCommission

FA/12/480

HDFC BANK LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SHALIMA MARY - Opp.Party(s)

05 Jan 2016

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

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

Date of Decision:05.01.2016

Appeal No.480/12

 

(Arising out of the order dated 20.04.2012 passed in Complaint Case No. DF.VII/597/2010/6490 by the

District Consumer Redressal Forum-VII, Delhi.)

In the matter of:

1. Manager, HDFC Limited,

Having its Northern Regional Office at:

The Capital Court,

•  

Olof Palme Marg,

New Delhi-110067.

 

2. Manager, HDFC Limited,

First Floor, Goodwill Avenue,

Plot 1, Sector-40,

Opposite Seawood Railway Station,

Nerul West, Navi Mumbai-400706.

 

3. Managing Director, HDFC Limited,

Ramon House,

H.T. Parekh Marg,

169, Backbay Reclamation,

•  

Mumbai-400020.                                                          ……..Appellants

           

Versus

Ms. Shalima Mary,

R/o B-2, Press Enclave,

Saket, New Delhi-110017.

                                                                                                            .….....Respondent

                                                                

CORAM

O. P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

S. C. Jain, Member

 

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

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

 O P Gupta, Member (Judicial)

1. The OP has come in appeal against order dated 20.04.2012 passed by District Forum-VII.  The facts which can be gathered from the impugned order are that respondent filed complaint on the averments that she and her husband took housing loan from OP-2/appellant and mortgaged flat on 22.06.2004.  She was subjected to cruelty by her husband and she shifted to Delhi on 3^rd May, 2007.  After coming to Delhi, she wrote a letter to OP-2 to prevent any transaction with regard to mortgage. She sent reminder to OP but he did not respond. The complainant had to pay an amount of nearly one lac including penal interest and other charges due to not providing information by OPs.  The complainant suffered harassment and mental agony.  The complainant prayed for directing OPs to provide copies of loan documents, refund Rs.98,124/- paid by her, Rs. three lacs as damages and Rs. two lacs for leaking out confidential information. Legal charges were also claimed.  OP-2 & 3 filed written statement urging that complainant was duty bound to inform OP about change of address which she didn’t. When the loan become irregular, OP sent a letter and reminders and on committal of default, OPs initiated legal action under Sarfaesi Act.

 

2. Parties filed evidence by way of affidavit. Written arguments were also filed.  After going through material on record, the Ld. District Forum came to the conclusion that complainant had informed her Delhi address in a letter dated 22.12.2007.  After that why the OPs did not change address of the complainant and why letters and reminders recalling loan were not sent at that address, remains a mystery. OP was negligent by not replying the letter of complainant  due to which loan amount could not be repaid in time.  Hence, it was held that complainant was entitled to get back Rs.98,124/- alongwith interest which she had to pay under compulsion. Accordingly, OP-2 was directed to pay Rs.98,124/- alongwith interest @10% per annum from the date of payment till date of refund.  It was also directed to pay Rs.25,000/- towards compensation, Rs.5,000/- towards litigation charges.

 

3. In appeal, the grievance of the appellant is that letter dated 22.12.2007 was not sent at the correct address of appellant no.2, the address given by the respondent in her claim and address on letter dated 22.12.2007 were different.  The amount recovered by appellant was legally recoverable, that had been recovered with due process of law. A sum of Rs.92,124/- was outstanding EMI defaulted by her and her husband. Rs.75,894/- was EMI and Rs.22,230/- were other dues including additional interest of Rs.7,896/-, Rs.14,334/- were incidental charges.  Notice was issued for Rs.6,45,318/-.

 

4. We have gone through the material on record.  During arguments, the counsel for appellant submitted that respondent had to pay a sum of Rs.98,124/-. She was further liable to pay future instalment which she had been paying. The father and AR of respondent admitted the fact that respondent had been paying future instalments. He also admitted that respondent had to pay a sum of Rs.98,124/- but the grievance of the complainant was that she was caused mental harassment by not informing the details in time.

 

5. From the contention of the parties we come to the conclusion that respondent is entitled to compensation for harassment and mental agony and that is all.  Thus, we maintain the impugned order to the extent it directs payment of Rs.25,000/- to the respondent towards compensation.  Rest of the order directing refund of Rs.98,124/- alongwith interest @10% per annum from the date of payment of the same by the complainant till refund and Rs.5000/- as litigation charges is set aside.

 

6. One copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost and one copy be se sent to District Forum for information.

 

 

(O. P. Gupta)

Member (Judicial)

                         

 

                                                                                                          (S. C. Jain)         Member

 

245.