State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Hdfc Bank Ltd., vs Umakanta Biswal, on 27 July, 2023
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE S REDRES SAL COMMIS SION,
ODISHA. CUTTACK
FIRST APPEAL NO. 321 of 2012
(From an order dated 14.02.2012 passed by the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Balasore in
Consumer Complaint No.2012009)
HDFC Bank Ltd., Represented through
Sri Harekrishna Mohanty, aged about 32 years,
S/o Amulya Ku. Mohanty, presently working as
Manager Legal, HDFC Bank Ltd., A162ll, Unit-
8, Nayapalli, Bhubanswar, Dist. Khurdha.
Appellant.
-Versus
Sri Umakanta Biswal, aged about 29
years, S/o. Late Bhagaban Biswal, Vill.
Mukhura, Po. Gobindapur, Ps. Remuna, Dist.
Balasore.
Respondent.
Counsel for the Appellant- Sri Nalini Kanta Dash,
Sri P.K.Nayak,
Srr P.K.Mohapatra.
Counsel for the Respondent- Sri Maheswar Mohanty,
Sri Gyana Ranjan Pani.
\&
I
2
PRESENT:. Sri Dillip Kumar Mohapatra, Member.
Sri Pramode Kumar Prusty, Member.
DATB OF HBARING-08 .12.2022 DATE OF ORDErd.- 27 - 07 -2023 ORDEIT
1) This appeal arises out of an order dt.l4-02-2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal F-orum, Balasore in Consumer Complaint No. 2012009. Parties to this appeal shall be referred with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.
2) The case of the Complainant in nutshell is that, the Complainant has obtained a loan for two wheeler Hero Honda C.D.Deluxe Motor Cycle from the O.P. i.e. H.D.F.C. Bank, Balasore through an agreement on 10-04- 2006 and on the same day the Complainant have submitted 36 numbers of blank cheque bearing No. 23ll2l to 231140 and231101 to 231116 drawn on the Co-operative Bank, Balasore, along with he had paid the first installment of Rs.882/-. Just after 4 days the O.P. Bank had intimated the Complainant to submit a new cheqr.re because the signature in one cheqrre does not tally with the signature of other cheque. So the Complainant submitted a blank cheque bearing No. 231117 to the Bank and requested him to retum the defective signature cheque. The O.P. Bank took several plea V 3 and did not retlrrn the same (defective cheque) in this way the O.P. has obtained 37 nos of cheques fiom the Complainant. On dt.05/05/2008 the O.P has received Rs.900l- by depositing the cheque bearing no.23l I l6 from tl.re A/c of Complainant. Again on 06-05-2008 with a malafide intention in order to harass the Cornplainant the O.P. deposited one checlue bearing No.23 I I l0 but it was bounced and service cl-rarge of Rs.29l- was deductecl fi'onr tite Complainant's account. The Cornplainant has requcsted several time to O.I'}. Bank to adjust the excess money for the month ol'June-2008. But the O.P. did not settle the matter rather had threatened to the Complainant il'tl-re Cornplainant did not pay the monthly installment amount they will takc tire vehicle,so on 20-05-2008 the Cornplainant was compelled to pa1, nronthly / irrstallment of Rs.BS2l- by cash to the O.P. vide money receipt No.9754415. By such the O.P. has taken excess arnount of lts.900/- + Its.29l- in total Rs.929l- for the rnonth of May-2008 such illegal activity of the O.P. Banl< is compelled him to take sheller in the court of law.
3) Alleging tleficiency in service ag-airrsl tlre Opp. Party, the Complainant frled C.D. Case No.20l2009 befble Dist. C.D.Ii. Irorutn, Hirlitrr)r'r llrir),irrp [iu';i (lirrt:liorr ln llrr (")P lo;rrlirrsl llni r]xr)r.:ir:r iltui)ult1. (,1' Rs.929l- to the instalhnent amount of the Complainant and to pay compensation of Rs.60,000/- for the mental tensior-r, agony and harassrxent n .:i.
'4 of thc Complainant.
1) Opp. Party filed its written version donying the arllegatior-rs of the Cornplainant and contended that the Oppositc Parly finanoed a loan arrrount of Rs. 25,0001- to the Complainant towards purchase of the vehiclc. It is not out of place to meneiton here that belbre sanction of the loan both tlre Parties cntered into a contract vide loan Agreenrent No. 2476096.In the said contract the parties arrived at the mutual consent that the Opposite Party/Bank would finance the vehicle for an allolurt of Rs.25,000/- ancl tirc same shall be repaid along with its interest by the Complainant in 36 eqrratcd n-ronthly instalhnents with effect fi'orn 1B-04-2006 to 05-03-2009 @ Rs.822l- per rnonth. fhe Cornplainant deviatecl and breachcd the telms and conditions of the loan agreeurent and failed to courply with thc contraott,al terrns ancl conditior-rs to rnaintain the financial discipline r.r'ith thc Opposite Party. Out of the 36 nos of cheque only 21 nos got cleared and 13 no o1' cheques got bounced. One cheque was given in rcturn to the Complainant due to mis-match in the signature and another cheque bearing No.23 t 1 t 7 was replaced which also got bounced. l'he allegation of receiving Its.90()/- throtrgh cheque No.2-11116 is drsputed and the Hank has not rpci'rVrr(1 Rs.900/- from this cheque and the proof of the sarne is called lor fronr the Complainant. The Cornplainant rnight have given the cheque bearing \& 5 No.231ll6 to some body else instead of giving to Bank. In vieu' o1'the abvoe submissiorr the Opposite Parly/Bank prays lol the dismisalI o{- the complaint with cost.
5) After l-rearing the case learned forum below, on 21-11-2011, Honorable Member (*) directed Opp. Party to pay claim amount of Rs.23,232l- plus Pts.929l- in total Rs.24,16ll- with an interest of 12oh per annurr stipulated period i.e. 05-05-2008 to 2l-11-2011 along rvith Rs.4,000/- towards the cost of litigation, compensation and Its.1,000/- towards mental agony and the O.P. return cheque bearing No.23I 1 12 to the Cornplaint or if fail to return the cheque the O.P. will pay a compensation o1- Rs.10,000/- to the Complainant within a period of 30 days lrorn the datc of reoeiving this order.
6) Flonorable President was not fully agreed with the.iudgment o1' Mernber (w) and directed to the Opp.Parly to returtr to Rs.19,900i- to the Complainant (sold amount) and to pay the excess urnount of Rs.929l- along ivith compensation and litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-.
7) On dt.14-02-2012, Honr-rrablr lvfrrrrher' (rrr) ,rg,riir(l willr lltr:
judgment of Honorable President.6
8)ChallengingtheimpugnedordertheAppellanthasfiledthe present appeal.
g) submitted During the course of hearing, counsel for Appellant encashed the cheque no' that, on dt.05-05-2008 the Appellant/Opposite Party no'231110 which was 231116 and on 06-05-2008 again presented cheque from his bank A/c' bounced, and deducted Rs. 291- towards service charge adjustment of the The complainant thereafter requested the appellant for excess money for the month of June-2008, which was never responded by the Appellant. It is alleged that the Appellant pressurised the Complainant to the Appellant has taken pay the monthly installemnt by cash and by this way Even a legal excess money of Rs.900/- from the Complainant/Respondent' since no step was notice served and after waiting for a consideratble period, dispute was filed' The taken by the Appellant for settlement, the consumer is a mistake on Appellant has collected 37 numbers of cheques as admitted this is a clear the face of record. There is no such admission at all' Rather case of the Appelalnt before the Forum below that the cheque No' 231116 was ncvcr issuecl tn thvour of the bartl<'
10) In the newly added fact it is alleged and held by the learned forum below that on 18-08-2009, the Appellant and his staffs forcibly \c-7
the Motor Cycle and the entered into the house of the Appellant and took it was held Complaiant has lodged FIR before Police Station' Subsequently' This fact was that motor cycle was sold on 04-01 -2010 for Rs'19,000/-' same should not be taken never brought on record in proper manner as such into consideration.
Further learnd Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the
11) impugend order shows malafide and needs interference by the honourable commission as because the date of the judgement and the signature of the authors of the judgement are differing from each other' While the judgement the Member(w) has shows at the top of the page to be dated 14-02-2012, was passed on the same signed it on 2l-ll-2oll and descending judgement date the other member which he was signed on 14-02-2012' The discrepancy the impugned order in the date of judgement itself a ground for setting aside in its entiretY.
perused the t2) Wc have heard learned cottnsel for the appellant, Appeal memo. DFR, written notes of submission filed on behalf of the Appellant.
on 2l-
13) We found from DFR Member (w) has passed the order that the case i1-2011 but on the toP of impugned order it is mentioned 8 decide on l4-02-2lt2.It appears from DFR that impugned order was signed the President also by Member (w) on 21-11-2011 and on the same day passed the order separtely giving discendin* ,i.* (Not agreed to the finding was kept for a decision by third and order of Member(w)), as such the record posted to 14-02-2012 for Member afterhis joining, on 2l-ll-2lll the case joining in Forum view of the third Member (Member male) soon after below.
t4) on14-02.20|2thePresidentandMaleMemberpassedthe following order:-
Dt.|4.02-2ol2.TheCaseispostedto-dayforviewof3rd Memberi.e.Membermaleregardingtheorderpassedbythe the President and lady Member on dt.21-11-2011. Accordingly Member male agreed the view with the order passed by the to the President. So the C.D.Case disposed of with that direction o.P. sd/- sd/-
(Member) (President)
-Balasore
District iOn Forum, Balasore District CDR Forum, Section 14 (2A) of consumer Protection Act-1986 clearly
15) speaks that:-
,,Every order made by the District Forum under sub-
member or section (t) shall be signed by its President ond the members who conducted the proceeding: Provided that where \€ .t nbt , , r antd one member the proceeding is conducted by the President andtheyd,ff,,onanypointorpoints,theyshallstatethepoint orpointsonwhichtheydffirandreferthesametotheother member for hearing on such point or points and the opinion of themajorityShattbetheorderoftheDistrictForllm,,.
the
16) we find on 14-02-2012 the 3rd Member without hearing as such the impugned matter agreed with the view of order of President order is illegal arbitraty and liable to be set aside'
17) Hence the impugned order is set aside' After careful consideration we remit back the matter to learned
18) giving notice to Parties Forum/Commission below to hear the matter afesh to the Parties within a and dispose of the same giving opportunity of hearing period of three months from the date of receipt of this order.
1e) Accordingly the appeal is disposed of with above order'
20) StatutoryamountmayberefundedtotheAppellantonproper identification.
order ?l) T)trc to nen constitution of Rench by the then President, pronounoe ttr-day i.e. on 27-07-2023' Send back DFR.
(P.K.PrustrY) (Member) ffi* (Member