Sri Nemai Chandra Bera,

son of Kebal Chandra Bera,

residing at 39/3, Bairagi Para Lane,

P.S. Malipanchghora, District - Howrah.------------------------------------  COMPLAINANT.

-          Versus   -

1.         The Manager,

            HDFC Bank Ltd.,

            having its head office at

            8, Netaji Subhas Road,

            Kolkata – 700001.

2.         Bhandari Automobiles Pvt. Ltd.

            having its office and show room

            at Nibra, Salap, P.S. Domjur,

            District – Howrah,

            Pin _ 711403. -------------------------------------------------------------Opposite Parties.

                                                P    R    E     S    E    N     T

President     :     Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.

Member      :      Shri P.K. Chatterjee.

      Member       :     Smt. Jhumki Saha.     

                                                 F  I   N   A    L       O    R   D    E     R

1.               The complainant namely Shri Nemai Chandra Bera  by filing a petition U/S 12 of the C .P. Act, 1986 ( as amended upto date ) has prayed for a direction to be given upon the O.Ps.  to pay an amount of  Rs. 12,072/-  with interest being excess amount on and from June, 2013 together with a compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- and litigation costs along with  other reliefs.

2.               The brief facts of the case is that the complainant filed an application before the o.p. no. 2 for purchasing Maruti Wagonr –VXI by taking loan from the o.p. no. 1 of total valued of Rs. 3,82,163/- out of which the complainant made payment in cash a sum of

Rs. 62,163/-  and thereby financial assistance was provided to the complainant of  Rs. 3,20,000/- by the o.p. no. 1 through a computerized sanctioned letter dated 14-06-2011 at a fixed rate of interest @ 11% p.a. at monthly equal installment of Rs. 6,860/- for a period of 60 months and accordingly  the complainant started paying installments to ECS under   complainant’s banker namely Oriental Bank of Commerce, Salkia Branch, Howrah,  through account no. 06262010017950 and deposited the same against newly loan account bearing no. 18986228 in the name of the complainant. The complainant as if stated that the o.p. no. 1 instead of realizing the said sum of  Rs. 6,860/- started realizing a sum of  Rs. 7,363/- per month which reflects in the statement of account as forwarded by the o.p. no. 1.  That the said HDFC Bank realized an excess amount of Rs. 503/- per month for a period of 24 months which comes of total excess amount of Rs. 12,072/- till the month of June,2013.  The complainant met with the Branch Manager of the o.p. no. 1 and informed orally for realizing the   excess amount and requested for refund the same as he already made payment as per record/ pass book. Being aggrieved complainant filed this instant case with the aforesaid prayer. Hence the complaint.   

3.               Notices were served upon the o.ps. The o.p. no. 1 appeared and filed written version but the o.p. no. 2 neither appeared nor filed any written version.  For which ex parte order was made against o.p. no. 2.

4.                The o.p. no. 1 in his written version contended interalia that the complainant approached before this answering o.p. no. 1 for financing assistance for purchasing a car being Maruti Wagnor and accordingly sanctioned the loan amounting to  Rs. 3,20,000/- under a auto loan agreement dated 17-06-2011 being loan account no. 18986228 and agreed to abide by all the terms and conditions of the agreement under which the complainant were required to repay the loan amount in 60 equal monthly installments @ Rs. 7,363/-   commencing from 07-07-2011 through   ECS mandate. This answering o.p. no. 1 also opined that the complainant paid only 24 EMIs out of 60 EMIs. Moreover as per terms of the agreement as on 20-09-2013 a sum of  Rs. 34,794/- has become overdue. The o.p. no. 1 denied the sanctioned letter which reflect that the EMI of the loan @ Rs. 6,860/- but on the contrary it was mentioned 60 EMIs @  Rs. 7,363/- per month for which question of receiving EMIs Rs. 6,830/- does and cannot arise. It is denied and disputed that this answering o.p. no. 1 has realized excess amount of Rs. 503/- per month in violation of the banking rule under which it is submitted by the o.p. no. 1 that the claim of the complainant is baseless purported and only tactics to realise the monetary gain and liable to be denied and the complaint as made by the complainant may please be rejected with exemplary costs.

5.               Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :

i)          Is there any deficiency in service or  unfair trade practices  on the part of the O.Ps?

ii)                  Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief and compensation as prayed for? 

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

6.               Both the points are taken up together for consideration. B y paying the required amount of installments, complainant becomes a consumer of o.ps. We have carefully gone through the written version of o.p. no. 1 and noted the contents therein.

7.               It is admitted facts that the complainant entered into an agreement with the o.p. no. 1 for a loan of  Rs. 3,20,000/- with monthly payment of installments to be paid equally in 60 installments against purchasing a car.

8.               The point of dispute is that the installment which is supposed to pay the complainant differ from Rs. 6,860/- to  Rs. 7,363/- for which complainant paid  excess amount @ Rs. 503/- per month for 24 installments of  total amount comes to Rs. 12,072/- against such he claimed for refund / adjust the same. From the available records as  endorsed by the complainant so received from the o.p. no. 1 through  Email on the dated 14-06-2013 as  elaborated below.

           Loan Amount  -  Rs. 3,20,000/-, Assets Value Rs. 3,82,163/-, tenure 60, total down payment by customer Rs. 62,163/-.

9.      Moreover, it is also stipulated in the page 2 of the email note that the loan will be

disbursed on receipt of the following documents : -

( 1 ) Stamp loan agreement,  ( 2 ) Repayment instruction, ( 3 ) Invoice and insurance cover note etc.   

10.   We have also taken into consideration the agreement for auto loan made in

between complainant and o.p.  no. 1 ( herein HDFC Bank ) which is self-explanatory on the dated 17-06-2011 in spite of the facts that the approval letter sent by o.p. no. 1 to the customer namely  Sri Nemai  Ch. Bera on the dated 14-06-2011 differ the amount of EMI payment.

11.  From the above it is specifically visualized that at the time of issuing computer

generated sanctioned  approve letter dated  14-06-2011 it appears that the installments against granting loan of Rs. 3,20,000/- was @ Rs. 6,860/- per month to be payable for 60 months at the time of agreement dated 17-06-2011 installment amount enhanced to Rs. 7,363/- i.e., rs. 503/- more per installment for total 60 installments as per agreement. 

12.  The complainant  is a lay man and signed the agreement under compelled

circumstances.  Had it been with in his prior knowledge prior to date of agreement i.e., 17-06-2011 he would not have accepted the said loan and would have accepted the loan facilities from  other banking and financial institutions at that material point of time. In this particular case the o.p. no. 1 by adopting such unfair trade practice has been creating mental and physical agony to the complainant who has become a  victim of circumstances and by such unfair trade practice realized more or less a sum of Rs. 12,072/-  being excess amount over the amount payable upto the month of June, 2013 to the o.p. no. 1. Accordingly we accepted the claim of the complainant as justified one, a legitimate claim. People take loan to cover unforeseen risk and at the time of payment of the  EMI/ claim o.ps. are taking all false plea which should not be allowed. Accordingly we find by realizing  excess amount of  Rs. 12,072/-  o.p. have adopted unfair trade practice , such action of the o.ps. is arbitrary, whimsical.

13.  Accordingly we hold o.ps. to be d efficient in service and the complainant is

entitled to get the relief. The points are accordingly disposed of.  

      Hence,

                                    O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No. 228  of 2013 ( HDF  228 of 2013 )  be  allowed on contest with costs against o.p. no. 1 and ex parte with costs against o.p. no. 1.  

      The O.P. nos. 1 & 2   be directed jointly and severally  to refund excess amount of  Rs. 12,072/- in favour of the complainant with interest @ 9% p.a. on and from June, 2013 and to pay a compensation of  Rs. 5,000/- and litigation costs of Rs. 2,000/- within one month from this order i.d., the entire amount shall carry an interest @ 9% p.a. till full realization.

      The complainant is hereby directed to repay the balance 36 installments ( 60-24 ) of EMIs @ Rs. 6,860/- as per approval letter  dated 14-06-2011 starting within 30 days from the date of this order.

      The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.

      Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.

DICTATED  &    CORRECTED

BY   ME.  

  (   P. K. Chatterjee )                                                         

  Member,  C.D.R.F.,Howrah.