DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 20th day of April, 2023
Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President
: Smt.Vidya A., Member
: Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member Date of filing: 27/11/2019
CC/277/2019
Sasikumar
S/o Chinnan Nair
Deepthi, Sree Durga Nivas
Kallekulangara, Akathethara
Palakkad - Complainant
(By Adv. N.R.Mahadevan)
V/s
The Manager
HDFC BANK Ltd., 12/799
1st Floor, Near Santhi Colony
Chembalkodiyil, Palakkad-Thrissur Bypass Road
Chandranagar, Palakkad - Opposite party
(By Adv. K.A.Kailas)
O R D E R
By Smt. Vidya.A, Member
1. Pleadings of the complainant in brief
The complainant availed a loan from the opposite party with loan A/c No: 25429372 for purchasing a vehicle. The complainant purchased a car by brand name ‘Toyota Etios’. Complainant was regularly paying the EMIs. Later on, as per the complainant’s request, the opposite party arranged to refinance the loan with effect from 30/05/2017 with Loan A/c No: 4510218.
Later the complainant decided to sell the vehicle to dealer ‘Amana Toyota’ from where he purchased it. The dealer agreed to re-pay the loan amount due from the complainant to the opposite party Bank and to pay the balance amount, if any, to the complainant. When he approached the opposite party Bank to close the loan, they informed him that he has to pay 3.54% of the loan amount as pre-payment charges on outstanding principal. They calculated Rs. 1,98,289/- as the amount to be paid for closing the loan and assured that if the complainant pay this amount on or before 26/08/2019, they will issue NOC to him. The complainant paid the amount with the opposite party Bank on 26/08/2019 and they issued receipt for this.
Later the opposite party failed to keep the promise in issuing the NOC after closing the loan account. Complainant and the official from Amana Toyota approached the opposite party requesting NOC; but the opposite party did not issue it.
The act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The complainant had caused to issue a Lawyer notice demanding it. The opposite party send reply stating untrue facts. As per that the complainant had to pay some amount to the Bank on account of the Credit Card facility availed by him and they can give NOC only after clearing that. The conduct of the opposite party had caused great mental agony and financial loss to the complainant. Hence he filed this complaint for directing the opposite party to issue NOC with regard to the vehicle KL-9-AF-6731 and to pay a compensation of Rs. 2 lakh for the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party together with cost of the litigation.
2. After admitting complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party. The opposite party entered appearance and filed version.
3. The opposite party in their version contended that complainant is not a ‘Consumer’ and the alleged dispute is not a ‘Consumer dispute’ as per the Consumer Protection Act. The relationship between the complainant and opposite party is that of a debtor and creditor. They admit that the complainant had availed auto loan of Rs. 4,31,000/- from the opposite party in the year 2017. Complainant executed a loan agreement and agreed to repay the loan amount as per the schedule. The complainant also agreed that despite of the closure of auto loan, bank has the right to hold NOC in the event of outstanding amount payable in any other loan facility availed by the complainant.
The complainant also availed Credit Card facility bearing ANN 0001014620002703053 from the opposite party Bank. The complainant had utilised the Credit Card facility and made various transactions with the use of the Credit Card. Complainant failed to pay monthly instalments within the due date resulting accrual of huge amount as default. As on 30/09/2019, an amount of Rs. 75,226/- is due from the complainant to the Bank. The complainant had filed this complaint inorder to avoid his liability to repay the loan amount.
The opposite party never agreed to issue NOC without closing the Credit Card account. Since the complainant failed to pay the outstanding amount in the card account, the opposite party is legally entitled to hold NOC until the complainant clears the outstanding amount in the card account. There is no deficiency in service/unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. The complainant is not entitled to the reliefs claimed and the complaint has to be dismissed with compensatory cost to the opposite party.
4. From the pleadings of both parties, the following points arise for consideration
- Whether the complainant is a ‘Consumer’ as per the Consumer Protection Act?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get NOC from the opposite party or whether any amount is due to the opposite party on account of the Credit Card facility availed by the complainant?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service/unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs?
- Reliefs as cost & compensation.
5. Complainant filed proof affidavit and Exhibits A1 to A7 marked. Complainant filed an application IA/60/23 to cross examine the opposite party and it was allowed. Later, as per the submission of both parties that there is a chance for settlement, it was posted to settlement. But it failed. As the opposite party’s witness was not present for examination, opposite party’s evidence was closed. Opposite party filed proof affidavit without any documents. Later the opposite party filed additional affidavit along with 2 IA’s 155/23 to accept documents and 154/23 to cross examine the complainant. Both IA’s were dismissed.
6. Point No: 1
Opposite party’s contention is that complainant is not a ‘Consumer’ as per the Consumer Protection Act and the alleged dispute is not a Consumer dispute. The relationship between the complainant and opposite party is that of debtor-creditor.
This is not correct. Since banking and finance comes under the definition of ‘Service’ under Consumer Protection Act, opposite party Bank is a service provider and the complainant is a ‘Consumer’ of the opposite party and the dispute in this case is a ‘Consumer Dispute’. Point No: 1 is decided in favour of the complainant.
7. Point No: 2
Complainant’s grievance is that he had availed an auto loan from the opposite party Bank. After paying the EMIs for some time, he decided to sell the vehicle to the dealer Amana Toyota. The dealer agreed to pay the balance in the loan amount and to close it. As per that, the complainant approached the bank to close the loan. They asked him to pay Rs.1,98,289 including pre-closure charges for closing the loan and promised to issue NOC on the closure of the loan.
The complainant paid the amount on 26/08/2019 and the opposite party Bank issued receipt for that. But even after his repeated requests, the Bank did not issue the NOC.
8. The complainant produced the letter from HDFC Bank in reference to the pre-payment of used car Refinance Loan Account No: 4510218. As per that Total amount payable is Rs. 1,98,289 which is valid upto 26/08/2019 and is marked as Ext. A1. Ext. A2 is the receipt dated 26/08/2019 issued by opposite party Bank for the payment of total amount of Rs. 1,98,289/- Ext.A3 is the purchase agreement entered into between the complainant and Amana Toyota VPK Motors (P) Ltd., Palakkad and Ext. A4 is the delivery Receipt issued by Amana Toyota. Hence the complainant had proved his contentions.
9. Opposite party’s contention is that the complainant had availed Credit Card facility from the opposite party Bank. He made various transactions with the Credit Card; but failed to pay the monthly instalments in time. As on 30/09/2019, an amount of Rs. 75,226/- is due from the complainant to the Bank.
10. The opposite party filed chief affidavit on 16/11/2021 without any documents. Later after one year, on 22/11/2022, the opposite party filed additional proof affidavit and 2 applications, IA/154/23 to grant permission to cross examine the complainant, IA/155/23 to receive the documents produced by the opposite party. Both IAs were dismissed by the Commission with the observation that opposite party was not at all interested in conducting the case and had only attempted to prolong the matter for over 2 years.
11. So no documents were marked from the side of the opposite party to prove their contention. In the absence of evidence, we are not inclined to accept the opposite party’s contention.
Hence as per the evidence adduced, the complainant is entitled to get NOC as he has closed the loan account. Point No: 2 is decided accordingly.
12. Points 3 to 5
In view of the conclusion arrived at in Point No: 2, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in not issuing NOC even after closure of the loan account. The opposite party is bound to compensate the complainant for their deficiency in service and for the inconveniences suffered by the complainant on account of that.
In the result, the complaint is allowed.
- We direct the opposite party to issue NOC with regard to the complainant’s car KL-9-AF-6731.
- To pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for their deficiency in service, Rs.25,000/- for the inconveniences suffered by the complainant and Rs.15,000/- as cost of the litigation.
The opposite parties shall comply with the directions in this order within 45 days of receipt of this Order, failing which opposite party shall pay to the complainant Rs. 250/- per month or part thereof until the date of payment in full and final settlement of this order.
Pronounced in open court on this the 20th day of April, 2023.
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President
Sd/-
Vidya.A
Member
Sd/-
Krishnankutty N.K.
Member
APPENDIX
Documents marked from the side of the complainant:
Ext. A1: Loan account statement of A/c No: 4510218.
Ext. A2: Payment Receipt for Rs. 1,98,289/-
Ext. A3: Purchase agreement dated 24/08/2019.
Ext. A4: Delivery receipt dated 27/08/2019 issued by M/s AMANA TOYOTA VPK
MOTORS (P) Ltd.
Ext. A5: Payment receipt for Rs. 1,010/- dated 26/08/2019.
Ext. A6: Lawyer notice dated 13/09/2019.
Ext. A7: Reply notice dated 27/09/2019.
Documents marked from the side of opposite parties: Nil
Witness examined from the complainant’s side: Nil
Witness examined from the opposite parties side: Nil
Cost- Rs. 15,000/-
NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.
