DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Dr.Joseph K.Masih, r/o House No.49, Shivalik Vihar, Nayagaon, Tehsil Kharar, District Mohali.

…..Complainant

                                      V E R S U S

The Manager, HDFC Bank, Auto Loan, SCO No.28, Industrial Area, Phase I, Chandigarh.

……Opposite Party

QUORUM:   P.L.AHUJA                                                  PRESIDENT

                   RAJINDER SINGH GILL                                MEMBER

                   DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA         MEMBER

Argued by: Complainant in person.

                     Sh.J.S.Mann, Counsel for the OP.

PER P.L.AHUJA, PRESIDENT

1.                Dr.Joseph K.Masih, complainant has filed this consumer complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against The Manager, HDFC Bank - Opposite Party (hereinafter called the OP), alleging that he took a loan of Rs.3 lacs from the OP vide agreement No.2186526 to be paid in 60 monthly installments. The copy of repayment schedule is Annexure C-1. It has been contended that the complainant has paid all the due installments and the last installment was paid on 02.01.2011. The copies of demand letter and receipt are Annexure C-2 and C-3. The complainant has been constantly approaching the OP to get the No Due Certificate and Form No.35-A, so that finance is cancelled from the record of Registering Authority but to no effect. The complainant also served a legal notice dated 13.10.2011, copy of which is Annexure  C-4 but has not received any reply from the OP. The complainant has made a prayer for a direction to the OP to send the No Due Certificate and Form No.35-A and to make payment of compensation for harassment and agony along with litigation costs.

2.                The OP in its reply has pleaded that the complainant failed to mention that apart from the present loan bearing No.2186526 he also availed another loan bearing No.3365708 under which he is a defaulter. That loan having become an NPA the full amount is payable. The same vehicle stands as security in the second loan. It has been averred that in accordance with the provisions of Section 171 of the Contract Act the bank has a lien over all forms of securities or negotiable instruments deposited by or on behalf of the customer in the ordinary course of banking business and that the general lien is a valuable right of the banker judicially recognized. It has been averred that the bank had the right to refuse to remove the hypothecation under the second loan till such time as all the dues are not cleared. It has been stated that NOC could not be issued on account of second loan on the vehicle, which is in default.     

3.                During the pendency of the complaint on 11.4.2012, OP moved an application for permission to place on record the copy of the NOC and the documents regarding delivery. The complainant filed the reply to the application, in which, it was averred that on 11.4.2012 the OP had produced on record alleged authority letter stated to be given by him to some lady Ms.Nazma Parveen  to collect the NOC and Form 35 and she allegedly received NOC and Form 35 on his behalf. It has been averred that the said authority letter does not bear the signature of the complainant and he does not know Ms.Nazma Parveen and never met her.

                   Thereafter on 30.7.2012 the complainant filed an application dated 28.6.2012 under Section 340 Cr.P.C. for legal action against concerned official of OP Bank for forgery because the complainant never signed the authority letter and other documents allegedly signed by him.

4.                The OP in his reply has averred that it had filed an application for permission to place on record the documents showing the delivery/receipt of NOC by the authorized representative of the complainant, who had also provided a copy of the PAN Card of the complainant as well as her Voter ID Card as identification proof. It has been averred that the NOC has been issued in pursuance of the complainant having closed the pending loan No.3365708 in February, 2012. The complainant has refused to take even the original documents placed on record.

5.                Again on 31.10.2012 the OP filed an application for permission to place on record the copy of confirmation document by RTO office confirming the cancellation of Hypothecation Arrangement, on which the complainant recorded No Objection.

6.                The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

7.                We have gone through the material on record, written arguments submitted by the complainant and heard the arguments addressed by the complainant in person and the learned Counsel for the OP in the main complaint as well as applications.

8.                It is the admitted case of the OP that the complainant had taken a loan of Rs.3 lacs vide Agreement No.2186526 and had paid all the dues. As far as the question of issuance of No Due Certificate and Form No.  35-A is concerned, the copy of letter dated 2.2.2012 sent to the complainant by the OP shows that the complainant had also taken a car loan in account No.3365708 and an amount of Rs.42,534.06 was payable by him. The complainant has not filed any rejoinder to this effect that he had not taken the alleged loan No.3365708 and the same vehicle was not hypothecated with the bank while taking loan No.2186526. The complainant has also not filed any rejoinder to this effect that the amount of Rs.42,534.06 was not payable in loan No.3365708. The plea of the OP that the complainant being liable to pay the amount under another loan, the financer is as per law and under Section 171 of the Contract Act had a right of lien over the documents in the other loan as well as the right to remove the hypothecation under the second loan till such time as all the dues of the OP are not cleared carries sufficient weight. Since the complainant was a defaulter in another loan with the same bank and he himself voluntarily paid an amount of Rs.32,000/- on 20.2.2012 and the OP was justified in not issuing the No Due Certificate and Form 35 to the complainant in view of the provisions of Section 171 of the Contract Act, therefore, we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

9.                Significantly, the OP on 11.4.2012 filed an application for placing on record the original of the NOC and other documents showing that the loan agreement No.3365708 entered into between the OP and the complainant was terminated and RTO/Insurance Company were requested to remove the hypothecation of the OP bank on vehicle bearing registration No.PB27B9348. According to the written arguments filed by the complainant, he received an offer from the OP to settle the Over Draft Limit by 20.2.2012 on payment of Rs.32,000/- and he paid an amount of Rs.32,000/- vide cheque dated 20.2.2012. The copy of statement of accounts dated 10.4.2012 in respect of loan account No.3365708 shows that after receiving the payment of Rs.32,000/- on 24.2.2012 the balance in account No.3365708 was shown to be nil. Accordingly on 30.3.2012 No Objection Certificate for termination of the Loan Agreement No.3365708 was issued. According to authorization and acknowledgment dated  27.3.2012 produced by the OP, the complainant had authorized one Ms.Nazma Parveen to collect/handover payments and the complainant confirmed that he had received the requisite documents from HDFC Bank for the agreement No.3365708. The OP has also produced a copy of authority letter allegedly issued in favour of Ms.Nazma. The OP has also produced a copy of the Voter ID Card of Nazma daughter of Sh.Lal Hussain and the PAN Card of the complainant allegedly produced by Nazma before the bank. Thus, according to the documents produced by the OP, the loan agreement No.3365708 was terminated on 30.3.2012. The OP has also produced a copy of the confirmation document by Registering Authority, Kharar on 31.10.2012 which shows that the hypothecation of HDFC Bank Ltd. on vehicle No.PB-27B-9348 has been cancelled. It has been urged by the complainant that his alleged signatures on the alleged authority letter are forged and he never authorized Ms.Nazma Parveen to collect the NOC and Form No.35 from the OP and the official of the OP who forged the documents and attempted to create false document is liable to be punished by initiating proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C.

10.              On the other hand, it has been contended by the learned Counsel for the OP that Ms.Nazma had furnished the PAN Card of the complainant as well as her own Voter ID Card as identification proof and NOC was issued in pursuance of the complainant having closed the pending loan No.3365708 in February, 2012 and no forgery has been committed by the bank or any of its officers.

11.              After going through the material on record, it is observed that complicated questions of facts and law are involved in this complaint, which require detailed voluminous evidence, production of original documents, cross examination of the witnesses and the detailed scrutiny of the record of the bank, which cannot be adjudicated by way of summary procedure by this Forum. The complainant has contended that the OP converted the outstanding in the Over Draft Limit to term loan at its own without his consent but at the same time on the offer of the OP, he also paid an amount of Rs.32,000/- vide cheque dated 20.2.2012 to the OP. The complainant has also alleged in his application that the OP bank has tried to cheat this Forum by placing on record false and fabricated documents as evidence. The allegations relating to forgery and cheating are quite serious which cannot be decided conclusively by way of summary adjudication. Since the main complaint cannot be decided by this Forum by way of summary procedure, the application under Section 340 Cr.P.C, which is connected with the documents in question, can also not be decided by this Forum. We have already found that the non issuance of No Due Certificate and Form No.35-A does not constitute deficiency in service on the part of OP. The other issues which have been raised by the complainant during the pendency of the complaint are not pleaded either by amending the complaint or by filing a rejoinder by him.

12.              As a result of the above discussion, the complaint is ordered to be dismissed with liberty to the complainant to get the issues raised by him in this complaint decided from the Civil Court. The parties are left to bear their own costs.

13.              The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.