Haryana

Sonipat

CC/228/2015

Rajesh Kumar S/o Sh. Kali Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager HDFC Bank - Opp.Party(s)

SURENDER DAHIYA

26 Apr 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

Complaint No.228 of 2015

Instituted on: 17.07.2015                 

Date of order: 26.04.2016

 

Rajesh Kumar son of Kali Ram, r/o Kothi no.11, Sector 15, Sonepat.

…Complainant.           Versus

The Manager, HDFC bank, Sonepat.

                                      …Respondent.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh.SK Dahiya, Adv. for complainant.

Sh.RK Panchal Adv. for respondent.

 

Before-  Nagender Singh-President. 

          Prabha Wati-Member.

         

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint  against the respondent alleging therein that his car has met with an accident on 27.1.2014 and the complainant has informed the Manager, Chola MS General Ins. Co. immediately at their toll free number. The car of the complainant was totally damaged  and the insurance company has declared it as total loss and it was decided that the salvage will be sell as Rs.9,10,000/-  and rest of the amount as Rs.12,75,271/- will be given to the complainant as full and final payment.  The complainant has completed all the required formalities and has met with the respondent to deposit the entire amount, who has directed the complainant to submit the foreclosure report from the insurance company to avoid 4% penalty.   The complainant has requested the General Ins. Co. to supply the foreclosure report which was given to the complainant on 4.4.2014 and the same was submitted with the respondent, but the respondent has put 4% penalty to deposit the amount before date. The complainant has requested the respondent to wave the penalty but the respondent only wave 2% penalty in place of 4% and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.

2.        In reply, the respondent has submitted that the complainant did not submit the documents with the respondent well in time.  The respondent never deducted the amount of the complainant.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.        We have heard the arguments advanced by both the parties and have perused the entire relevant documents available on the case file very carefully and minutely.

4.       Ld. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that the complainant’s car has met with an accident on 27.1.2014 and the complainant has informed the Manager, Chola MS General Ins. Co. immediately at their toll free number. The car of the complainant was totally damaged  and the insurance company has declared it as total loss and it was decided that the salvage will be sell as Rs.9,10,000/-  and rest of the amount as Rs.12,75,271/- will be given to the complainant as full and final payment.  The complainant has completed all the required formalities and has met with the respondent to deposit the entire amount, who has directed the complainant to submit the foreclosure report from the insurance company to avoid 4% penalty.   The complainant has requested the General Ins. Co. to supply the foreclosure report which was given to the complainant on 4.4.2014 and the same was submitted with the respondent, but the respondent has put 4% penalty to deposit the amount before date. The complainant has requested the respondent to wave the penalty but the respondent only wave 2% penalty in place of 4% and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.

          On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the respondent has submitted that the complainant did not submit the documents with the respondent well in time.  The respondent never deducted the amount of the complainant.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

4.       After hearing both ld. Counsel for the parties at length and after going through the entire relevant records available on the case file very carefully, we are of the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.  In our view, charging of penalty amount from the complainant is wrong and not justified.

         During the course of arguments, the respondent in support of his case has placed on record the document marked as JN wherein it is mentioned :-

 

LOAN REPAYMENT/PART PAYMENT/RESCHEDULEMENT CHARGES

 

Within 12 months from the      6% on the principal

Ist EMI.                       Outstanding.

 

Within 13 to 24 months from    5% on the principal

the Ist EMI.                       Outstanding.

 

After 24 months from the       3% on the principal

Ist EMI.                       Outstanding.

 

         But we find no force in this contention of the ld. Counsel for the respondent, because in the case in hand, the vehicle of the complainant was totally damaged.  If the vehicle would have run and would not have met with an accident, then the complainant must have pay the installments regularly as he was paying earlier.  But after the accident, the circumstances were changed and the same were beyond the control of the complainant.  So, in our view, charging of penalty at the rate of 4% which comes to Rs.63697/- or charging of penalty at the rate of 2% which comes to Rs.31848/-, is wrong, illegal & not justified.  Thus, we hereby direct the respondent to refund the amount of Rs.31848/- (Rs.thirty one thousand eight hundred forty eight) to the complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of passing of this order, otherwise, the above said amount shall fetch interest at the rate of 09% per annum from the date of passing of this order till its realization. Since the complainant has been able to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the respondent, the respondent is further directed to compensnate the complainant to the tune of Rs.2000/- (Rs.two thousand) for rendering deficient services, harassment and under the head of litigation expenses.

          With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed.

Certified copy of this order be provided to

both the parties free of costs.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

Prabha Wati Member                     Nagender Singh

DCDRF SNP                             President, DCDRF SNP.

ANNOUNCED 26.04.2016