DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KANDHAMAL, PHULBANI

                                                C.C.NO.11 OF 2022

 Sri Niranjan Behera 

S/O- Jalaswar Behera   

AT- Nadikhandisahi Sahi,

PO/PS- Phulbani town

DIST – Kandhamal                                …....………………  Complainant.

                                Versus.

The Branch Manager,

HDFC Bank Ltd.

AT- Main road, Phulbani

PO/PS- Phulbani town   

DIST- Kandhamal                                 ..………………….. OPP. Party.

Present: Sri Purna Chandra Mishra    - President.

                 Sri Sudhakar Senapothi       - Member.

For the Complainant:  Manoj Kumar Sahu Adv. & associates

For O.P - None

Date of Argument:  29 -06 -2022

Date of Order:  15 -07 -2022     

                                                             JUDGEMENT

Sri Sudhakar Senapothi,Member       

The complainant has filed this case against the OP U/S 35 of CP Act 2019, alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice for restructuring his EMI without his knowledge and consent and violation of terms and conditions agreed between them and praying therein for direction to OP to close the loan account

                                                                -2-

as per agreement and refund the excess amount collected from him and pay a sum of Rs.50,000/-(fifty thousand)only towards deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, Rs.1,00,000 for causing mental, physical and financial harassment and Rs.20,000/-(twenty thousand)only towards cost of litigation.

1. Brief fact leading to the case is that the petitioner had availed a loan to the tune of Rs.1,27,186/-(One lakh twenty seven thousand one hundred eighty six) for purchase of one motorcycle repayable in 36 installments Rs.4378/-each. After availing the loan the petitioner had paid 35 nos. of monthly installments of Rs.4378/-(Four thousand three hundred seventy eight) and the petitioner was to pay one more installment of Rs.4378/-. At the time of availing the loan the OP obtained the signature of the petitioner in blank form and blank cheques from him. Even though the OP assured the petitioner with copies of the agreement and repayment schedule it has not been done as yet. Suddenly, the OP without the knowledge and consent of the petitioner changed the repayment scheduled unilaterally and started collecting Rs.1920/- from his account. As the petitioner after the expiry of the term of contract contacted the OP to get the “No Objection Certificate” for his motorcycle at that stage, he was informed that the repayment scheduled has been restructured. As he wanted to know as to how the repayment schedule has been changed without his knowledge and consent, there was no satisfactory answer from the side of the OP. Even though he requested to take the monthly installment as per the agreed schedule the OP did not agree and misbehaved the petitioner which hurt his sentiments. Change of the repayment scheduled unilaterally caused him severe harassment and the OP in spite of repeated approaches did not change the repayment schedule and misbehaved him for which he has filed this case for the reliefs prayed for in the complaint petition.

2. Notice was issued to the OP and was duly served on 03.06.2022. The OP in spite of notice served on him preferred not to appear or contest the case in any manner.

3. The complainant is support of his case has filed statement of accounts relating to the loan account of the Motorcycle in question  issued by the OP bank  and the statement of accounts of State Bank Of India in the name of the petitioner. The petitioner also filed the copy of the registration certificate, copy of the tax

                                                                -3-

invoice of the Motorcycle, copy of the insurance policy in support of his case. The petitioner has also filed his evidence in shape of affidavit.

4. The OP did not appear in spite of notice served on him and after affording sufficient chance, OP was set ex-parte on 28.06.2022 and this Commission proceeded to disposed off the case on merit.

5. As the OP in spite of service of notice did not raise any objection or challenge any allegation advanced against him, it is deemed that the OP has admitted the allegations made against him.

6. It is the allegation of the complainant that he is entitled to repay the loan amount in 36 equated monthly installment of Rs.4378/-(Four thousand three hundred seventy eight)only out of which he has already repaid 35 nos. of equated monthly installments and he was to pay one more installment of Rs.4378.From the statement of accounts issued by the OP i.e. HDFC Bank, it is clear that he has repaid 34 nos. of monthly installments of Rs.4378/-(Four thousand three hundred seventy eight)only,through the auto debit system. Therefore, we come to the conclusion that the petitioner has repaid 34 Nos. of EMIS out of 36 and has a sum of Rs.11,000/-(Eleven thousand)only is cash.

7. It is seen from the documents on record that the OP has already collected 4 nos. of EMIS of Rs.1920 each, which comes to Rs.7680 as per the statement of the OP. Bank. He has paid 35 nos. of EMIs which remains unchallenged. Under          such circumstances it is clear that the OP Bank has already collected much more money from the complainant than what is actually due on him and the Op is liable to return the excess amount collected from him.

8. The principal allegation of the petitioner is that the OP has unilaterally changed the repayment schedule without his knowledge and  consent and has started collecting of Rs.1920(One thousand nine hundred twenty)  through the auto debit mandate given to them. On perusal of the statement of accounts, it is seen that the OP, Bank has debited a sum of Rs.1920/-(One thousand nine hundred twenty) in each month starting from Jan 2022 till April 2022. The petitioner has filed his evidence to that effect by way of affidavit which is corroborated  from  the  statement  of  accounts  issued  by  the  OP  Bank.  The

                                                              -4-

evidence led by the petitioner on this score stands unrebutted and uncontroverted. As the OP has violated the terms of contract between them and have changed the repayment schedule unilaterally without the knowledge and consent of the petitioner, a case of unfair trade practice is made out against the OP and after several approaches did not respond to his allegation a case of deficiency in service is made out against the OP Bank.

9. The petitioner could not get his no objection certificate from the OP in due time because of the illegal and highhanded action of the OP, which caused much harassment to him. In our considered opinion as the OP violated the terms of contract for unlawful gain and did not change their mode of operation in spite of repeated complaints leading to harassment of the complainant, a clean case of unfair trade practice, deficiency in service and harassment is made out against the OP. He is liable to compensate the petitioner and hence the order.

ORDER

                        The complaint petition is allowed ex-parte against the OP i.e. HDFC Bank with cost. The OP is directed to issue no objection certificate in respect of the Motorcycle No.OD-02-BC-0896 and refund the excess amount which has already been collected from the petitioner. The Op is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.50, 000/-(Fifty thousand)only to the complainant towards compensation for unfair trade practice, deficiency in service and  harassment . The Op is further burdened with litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-(Ten thousand)only The order is to be complied with in a period of 45 days from the date of order, failing which the OP shall go on paying compensation of Rs.500/-(Five hundred) daily till the order is complied.

I Agree                                

PRESIDENT                                                                                          MEMBER

Pronounced in the open Commissioner today on this 15th day of July 2022.

 PRESIDENT                                                                   MEMBER