DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: BHADRAK : (ODISHA).
Consumer Complaint No. 30 of 2020.
Date of hearing : 02.05.2023.
Date of order : 05.06.2023.
Dated the 5th day of June 2023.
Sk. Sirajuddin, S/o:-Sk. Jalaluddin,
Vill:-Sultan Nagar,Chhadakmohala,
P.S:- Purunabazar,Dist:-Bhadrak. ………….. Complainant.
-:Versus:-
1. The Operation Manager (Credit Card Division)
H.D.F.C. Bank, 8, Lattice Bridge Road,
Thiruvanmyur, Chennai-600041.
2. The Branch Manager,
H.D.F.C. Bank Ltd., Bhadrak,
At:- Gupta Complex, Salandi By-pass, Bhadrak,
Po/PS/Dist:- Bhadrak, Pin-756100.
.…………Opposite parties.
P R E S E N T S
1. Sri Shiba Prasad Mohanty, President,
2. Smt. Madhusmita Swain, Member.
Counsels appeared for the parties.
Counsel for the Complainant :Sri Santosh Ku. Nayak, Advocate & Associates,
Counsel for the Opp. Parties : Sri Pradeep Ku. Mishra, Advocate & Associates.
J U D G M E N T.
SRI SHIBA PRASAD MOHANTY, PRESIDENT.
In the matter of an application filed by the complainant alleging deficiency of service against the Opposite Party under Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Facts of the case of is that, the complainant is having his permanent residence in the above mentioned address & earns his livelihood & maintains his family on daily wages as a mason. From his meagre earning, he opted to save some portion of his earning for future. For that he opened an account in the Bank of O.P.No.2 vide Account No.19561530002206 & Customer ID No. 40612971. O.P. No.2 is the Branch Manager of HDFC Bank, Bhadrak Branch & O.P. No.1 is the Operation Manager of Credit Card Division of HDFC Bank. Complainant has been accepted as a consumer under the O.Ps. While updating his Passbook, the complainant was surprised to find one entry on 14.01.2020 showing deposit credited to his account amounting to Rs.3,75,000/-. After enquiring from O.P.No.2, complainant came to know that an Insta Jumbo Loan Account No.1019030000559892 amounting to Rs.3,75,000/- has been sanctioned in his name. Though the complainant is having an account in the Bank of O.P. No.2, at no point time he neither opted to incur loan nor has he filed any application in that regard before the O.Ps. Complainant being burdened with such a huge sum of loan, contacted O.P. No.2 to know about such entry in his passbook. But O.P. No.2 expressed his inability & helplessness to help the complainant. On the other hand he directed the complainant to make correspondence with the O.P. No.1 to know about the details of his loan account. Complainant has not applied for loan to O.Ps, the O.Ps have not intimated the complainant while crediting an amount of Rs.3,75,000/- to his account. But the O.P. No.2 told that he will have to repay the amount in sixty nos. of monthly installments amount to Rs.10,348.47 paisa each. Such type of actions of Bank amount to unfair trade practice & deficiency in service to a customer like complainant who is a mason by profession. Moreover, under such circumstances, E.M.I. payment of Rs.10,348.47 paisa does not arise. Without any just cause an amount of Rs.16,331.14 paisa have been debited towards EMI from the said loan amount. Thereafter, stating the facts in detail, complainant sent a legal notice to O.P. No.1 through his advocate on 07.02.2020 by Regd. Post with A.D. requesting him to bring an end to the problems created by him. But it yield no result. The complainant is in mental agony being burdened with such huge amount of loan alleged to have been sanctioned by O.Ps in his favour. Even he is not able to do his mason work properly being mentally worried. Complainant has been harassed at the hands of O.Ps. Cost of mental agony & harassment is assessed to a tune of Rs.1,00,000/-. The O.Ps are deficient in their service to provide proper service to a customer like complainant for which they are liable to compensate the complainant to a tune of Rs.50,000/-. Even till today they have not given any reply of the advocate notice dt.07.02.2020 which also amounts to deficiency in service. The cause of action arose on 24.01.2020 when the complainant came to know regarding crediting of an amount of Rs.3,75,000/- to his account & after 07.02.2020 when the O.P. No.1 did not reply to the legal notice of the complainant. Complainant has prayed to direct the O.Ps to close the alleged loan account & to compensate the complainant to a tune of Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony & harassment and compensate the complainant to a tune of Rs.50,000/- for deficiency in service & unfair trade practice on the part of the O.Ps.
At the outset, O.Ps deny all the allegations contained in the complaint and alleged of suppression of material fact and raised maintainability of the complaint as the complainant does not qualify to be called a consumer as envisaged by the Sec. 2 (7) of C.P. Act, 2019. The O.Ps stated that, the borrower of the loan & the lender are bound by the terms & conditions applicable for the loan stipulated under the Card Member agreement & Jumbo Loan. The Insta Jumbo loan was offered to the complainant basing on the call made to the complainant on 14.01.2020 (A/c No.19561530002206) against Credit Card No. 36082xxxxxx993 & accordingly Jumbo loan was sanctioned vide Loan No.1019030000559892 & an amount of Rs.3,75,000/-. Later on 18.01.2020 an email was sent to complainant’s registered email id @sksirajuddin92@ gmail.com by the O.P. Bank detailing the amortization schedule of the loan & terms & conditions of the loan. O.Ps submitted that the monthly statement with respect to the Insta Jumbo loan was issued to the complainant’s registered email id @sksirajuddin92@gmail.com thereby he was well aware of the loan details. It is clearly mentioned in the terms & conditions of Card Member agreement & after availing the loan facility from the HDFC Bank, the complainant with an intention of a wrongful gain by not repaying the loan has come up with a false plea at this belated stage to avoid the loan amount. Complainant had failed to raise the dispute within the prescribed timeframe 30 days with the O.P. Bank. These OPs relied on the case of Rashpal Singh Bahia & others Vs. Surinder Kaur & Ors, 2008(2) Civil Forum Cases 778 (P&H) that one who comes to Forum must come with clean hands. A person whose case is based on falsehood has no right to approach the Forum. Complainant applied voluntarily for the loan facility & is bound by the terms & conditions envisaged in the MITC (Most Important Terms & Conditions) CMA (Card Member Agreements) for credit card & terms & conditions envisaged under the Insta Jumbo loan.In the case of Bharati Knitting Co. Vs. DHL Worldwide Express Courier (1996) 4 SCC 704, whereby it was held that when the complainant has signed the contract documents, he is bound by its terms & conditions and the onus would be on him to prove the terms & conditions, in which he has signed the contract. Both the parties are bound by its terms & conditions of the contract. The OPs relied on case reported in 2015 (4) CPR-148 (N.C.) in the case of Sunny &Ors. Vrs. Rajesh Tripathy, wherein it has been held by the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi that financing & advancement of loan does not fall within the purview of facility in connection with banking, transport etc. a mentioned in Sec. 2 (o) C.P. Act & in such circumstances, complainant does not fall within purview of consumer. That, to sum up, there being no deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps. In view of the submissions made above the O.Ps prays for the dismissal of the complaint with exemplary cost to the complainant.
Having heard the Ld. Counsels for the parties and after carefully considering the rival contention of belligerent parties, this Commission finds it proper to frame the following issues to settle the consumer complaint:-
- Whether complainant does not qualify to be called a consumer as envisaged by the Sec. 2 (7) of C.P. Act, 2019?
- Whether the complainant has applied for the Insta Jumbo loan ?
- Whether OPs have committed deficiency in providing service, committed unfair tarade practice which caused mental harassment to the complainant?
- If so then to what relief the complainant is entitled to?
The complainant has opened an account in the Bank of O.P.No.2 vide Account No.19561530002206 & Customer ID No. 40612971. The complainant resides permanently at Bhadrak and the OP Bank has a branch at Bhadrak. The cause of action also arose within the jurisdiction of this commission. So, the complainant is very much a consumer within the meaning of Sec. 2 (7) of C.P. Act, 2019. Issue No.1 is answered in favour of the complainant.
Now so far as the Issue No.2 is concerned, these OPs admit that they have offered the complainant the loan which he has accepted. But there is no material in the records to show that he has accepted the loan. On the other hand the complainant says that he only came to know about the credit of the said loan in his account when he updated his passbook. He has never applied for any loan nor he was offered any loan to which he has accepted. The complainant has not withdrawn any amount from the said loan which fortifies his claim that he has not asked for the loan nor has he accepted the loan. It seems that the said loan was unilaterally shoved upon the complainant who is a Mason in profession, by the Bank. It is evident from the passbook and his legal notice dtd.07/02/2020 that the complainant has not utilized the loan amount at all. There is no doubt remains in the mind of this commission that the said loan has been thurst upon the complainant without his asking or his express acceptance of the loan. So, issue no.2 is answered in favour of the complainant and against these O.Ps.
Such practice by the Bank is definitely unfair trade practice. Further, the OP Bank did not bother to answer to the legal notice neither addressed to the problem mentioned in the legal notice. It amounts to deficiency in service and negligence. So, the OP Bank has committed composite unfair trade practice, negligence and found to be deficient in providing service. Issue No.3 is answered against these OPs.
The complainant is not entitled to repay the loan which he has not availed or utilized. The complainant is entitled to get “No Dues Certificate” from the Bank in respect of the said loan. Further, the complainant needs to be compensated for the unnecessary harassment which he has undergone for such illegal practices of the OP Bank.
O R D E R.
In the result, the complaint & same be allowed. The O.Ps are directed to close the loan account at once and issue “No dues Certificate’ to the complainant. Further, OPs are directed to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards compensation against the mental agony suffered by the complainant and another Rs.5,000/- towards cost of litigation. This order is to be carried out by the O.P. Bank within 30 days from the date of order.
This order is pronounced in the open Court on this the 5th day of June 2023 under my hand and seal of the Commission.
