State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Hdfc Bank Ltd.And Others vs Mr.Shashikant P.Vaidya on 4 February, 2009
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MAHARASHTRA STATE, MUMBAI FIRST APPEAL NO.734 OF 2008 Date of filing : 03/05/2008 IN CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.33/2007 Date of order : 04/02/2009 ADDITIONAL DISTRICT FORUM, MUMBAI SUBURBAN @ MISC. APPLICATION NO.1049/2008 1.
HDFC Bank Ltd.
Bombay Scotish School Extn. Counter Lt.Prakash Narayan Kotnis marg Off Veer Savarkar marg, Mahim(W) Mumbai 400 016
2. Ms.Sonia Mangalore The Branch Manager HDFC Bank Ltd.
Bombay Scotish School Extn. Counter Lt.Prakash Narayan Kotnis marg Off Veer Savarkar marg, Mahim(W) Mumbai 400 016
3. Mr.Amitabh Sinha Retail Loan Customer Service 26-A, Narayan Properties Chandivali, Off.Saki Vihar Road Andheri (W), Mumbai 400 072 ..Appellants/org.O.Ps v/s.
Mr.Shashikant P.Vaidya R/o.52/53, Transit camp Gopi Tank Road, Matunga (W) Mumbai 400 016 Respondent/org.complainant Corum: Justice Shri B.B.Vagyani, Honble President Shri S.R.Khanzode, Honble Judicial Member Present : Mr.S.A.Oak-Advocate h/f.Mr.Mahesh Menon & Co.
for the appellants.
None for respondent O R A L O R D E R
Per Justice Shri B.B.Vagyani, Honble President
1. Heard Mr.S.A.Oak-Advocate h/f.Mr.Mahesh Menon & Co. for the appellant. Proof of service taken on record. None for the respondent.
2. Mr.Bharat R. Jagtap- Managing Clerk of Advocate Mahesh Menon & Co. has filed affidavit. Statement is made on oath on affidavit that respondent is duly served. Acknowledgement receipt is also placed on record. Respondent is duly served. None present for respondent.
3. There is delay of 107 days in filing the appeal. There is inordinate delay. Inordinate delay is not at all satisfactorily explained. It is stated in the application for condonation of delay that decision to file appeal could not be taken and therefore, delay is caused. Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provides limitation of 30 days for filing the appeal. Naturally decision to file appeal is required to be taken within a period of 30 days. We are therefore not inclined to condone the delay. Prayer for condonation of delay stands rejected. Misc. application no.1049/2008 stands rejected.
4. We examined the correctness of the order by way of abundant precaution. Original complainant had obtained personal loan of Rs.50,000/- from HDFC Bank. Borrower had agreed to repay the loan in 36 installments. Each installment was of Rs.1833/-. The last installment was due on 07/11/2006. Borrower however decided to foreclose the loan account and paid Rs.39,981/- to the bank as full and final settlement. In fact the account was foreclosed on 16/10/2004. However, 9 cheques which were remained with HDFC Bank Ltd. were tried to be encashed. Bank went on collecting monthly installments. Bank collected 9 installments. Therefore consumer complaint was filed. District Consumer Forum directed to pay Rs.4980/- by way of interest. District Consumer Forum has awarded Rs.20,000/- by way of compensation. On the date of foreclosure, the bank had absolutely no right to retain the remaining signed 9 cheques. Bank should have returned 9 cheques to the borrower when the amount of Rs.39,981/- was accepted by the complainant towards full and final settlement. Injury was caused to the complainant and therefore District Consumer Forum rightly awarded Rs.20,000/- by way of compensation. Order under challenge is perfectly legal and correct. Hence the following order:-
O R D E R
1.
Misc. application no.1049/2008 for condonation of delay stands rejected.
2. Appeal stands dismissed.
3. No order as to costs.
4. Pronounced and dictated in the open court.
5. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
(S.R.Khanzode) (B.B.Vagyani) Judicial Member President Ms.