State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Neelam Kumari vs H.D.F.C. Bank Limited on 31 October, 2012
2nd Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.231 of 2008.
Date of Institution: 17.03.2008.
Date of Decision: 31.10.2012.
Neelam Kumari Wife of Sh. Naveen Kumar, C/o Darshan Singh (Tahal Wala),
Ist Floor, Cantt. Road, Garha, Jalandhar.
.....Appellant.
Versus
H.D.F.C. Bank Limited, near Narinder Cinema, G.T. Road, Jalandhar, through
its Senior Manager.
...Respondent.
First Appeal against the order dated
16.01.2008 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar.
Before:-
Shri Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Member.
Shri Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member.
...................................
Present:- None for the appellant.
Sh. Sandeep Suri, Advocate, counsel for the respondent.
----------------------------------------
INDERJIT KAUSHIK, PRESIDING MEMBER:-
This order will dispose of two appeals i.e. First Appeal No.231 of 2008 (Neelam Kumari Vs H.D.F.C. Bank Limited) and First Appeal No. 246 of 2008 (Suresh Kumar Kapoor Vs H.D.F.C. Bank Limited) as the question of law and facts involved in both the appeals are similar and the appeals are directed against two similar orders dated 16.01.2008 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar (in short, "the District Forum"). The facts are taken from 'First Appeal No.231 of 2008' and the parties would be referred by their status in this appeal.
2. Facts in brief are that Smt. Neelam Kumari, appellant/ complainant filed a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the respondent, on the grounds that she First Appeal No.231 of 2008 2 is registered owner of Maruti-800 AC E III car bearing registration no.PB-08- AM-2311, having Chassis No.1803254, Engine No.2503420. The said vehicle was originally got financed from ICICI Bank Limited @ 9.10% interest p.a. The representative of the respondent bank namely Gagan approached the appellant and represented that the respondent bank will be providing her vehicle loan @ 9% interest p.a., which was below the interest being paid to the ICICI Bank Limited. At the insistence of the officials of the respondent, the appellant was induced to get her Maruti-800 car re-financed from the respondent after switching over from ICICI Bank Limited on 02.06.2006 vide Customer ID No.20165582 and an amount of Rs.1,30,500/- was sanctioned in favour of the appellant and appellant paid Rs.2300/- to the respondent as assessment fee, valuation and file charges etc.
3. The respondent did not release the full payment of Rs.1,30,500/- in favour of the appellant, as promised and released the payment of Rs.1,27,481/- only in installments, but did not release the balance amount of Rs.4019/- despite being asked a number of times.
4. To the utter surprise of the appellant, she came to know that the respondent instead of issuing vehicle loan to the appellant, had issued O.D. Limit @ 18% p.a. arbitrarily and unauthorizedly, whereas she has specifically asked for vehicle loan @ 9% p.a. interest as promised by the respondent and for that reason, she shifted the loan from ICICI Bank Limited to the respondent bank. There was no question of paying double interest by the appellant. The respondent has been charging interest @ 18% p.a. from the appellant and had been debiting it in O.D. Limit bearing Account No.046285000019 and also debited huge penalties illegally for no fault of the appellant. The appellant has been defrauded and cheated by the respondent, who has indulged in unfair trade practice. On coming to know the malafide intention of the respondent, the appellant asked the respondent to treat/convert the O.D. Limit to the vehicle loan, but the respondent kept on putting off the matter on one pretext or the other.
First Appeal No.231 of 2008 3
5. On 07.11.2006, certain unknown bad elements (gundaas) hired by the respondent came to the house of the appellant and tried to take forcible and illegal possession of the car and misbehaved and abused the appellant and her family members, but with the intervention of the inhabitants of the locality, they were stopped from doing so. The appellant has suffered a lot of harassment and mental tension.
6. It was prayed that the respondent be directed to release the balance amount of Rs.4019/- and to convert/treat the O.D. Limit as vehicle loan @ 9% interest p.a. from the date of sanction and to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.1.00 lac.
7. In the written reply filed on behalf of the respondent, preliminary objections were taken that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form. The appellant has concealed the material facts from the Forum. The appellant is defaulter of the Hire Purchase Agreement and has violated the terms and conditions, governing the schedule of loan agreement. The appellant has not come to the Forum with clean hands. The appellant herself approached and requested the respondent for grant of overdraft limit and executed security documents in favour of the respondent for the repayment of the limit at the agreed rate of 18% p.a. At present, the overdue amount of Rs.8931-36 is due as on 10.04.2007 besides the principle amount/O.D. Limited of Rs.1,30,500/-.
8. On merits, the ownership of the vehicle in question as well as its financing from ICICI Bank Limited was admitted. It was further pleaded that Overdraft Account was opened on 22.05.2006 and the appellant was sanctioned and disbursed an overdraft limit of Rs.1,30,500/- @ 18% p.a. Rs.2300/- were validly and legally charged out of which Rs.1300/- was charged on account of processing charges, Rs.300/- as valuation charges and Rs.700/- for removal of prior bank hypothecation & incorporation of the respondent bank hypothecation. Other similar pleas as taken in the First Appeal No.231 of 2008 4 preliminary objections were repeated and denying allegations of the complaint, it was prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
9. Parties led evidence in support of their respective contentions by way of affidavits and documents.
10. After going through the documents and material placed on file and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned District Forum observed that in this case, the stand of the appellant that she has shifted the loan from one bank to another to get concession of interest, is not supported by any evidence on the file and the respondents have filed various forms for change of loan from one bank to another and she has filled the agreement of loan. The appellant is bound by the terms and conditions of the agreement to pay interest @ 18% p.a. The document Ex.OP-4 clearly proves the case of the respondent and there is no deficiency in service, and dismissed the complaint.
11. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 16.01.2008, the appellant has come up in appeal.
12. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, perused the record of the learned District Forum and have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent.
13. Neither the counsel for the appellant nor anybody else on behalf of the appellant appeared at the time of arguments.
14. The appellant executed the documents in favour of the respondent with open eyes and the agreement Ex.OP-3 is a detailed agreement, specifying all terms and conditions and as per Promissory Note Ex.OP-4, Rs.1,30,500/- was payable along with interest @ 18% p.a. by the appellant to the respondent bank. The respondent bank paid the entire amount of loan to the ICICI Bank in consideration of the appellant executing all these documents. The version of the appellant that the interest was to be paid at 9% and the O.D. Limit account was never opened, is not supported by any cogent evidence. Except the affidavit of the appellant, there is no other First Appeal No.231 of 2008 5 evidence to support the same and the District Forum has rightly ignored the bald statement of the appellant, keeping into view the written documents executed by the appellant. It was a specific case of the appellant that the respondent bank was to charge the interest @ 9%, then it was incumbent upon the appellant to know the rate of interest before signing these documents. The order of the District Forum is based on documentary evidence and there is no ground to interfere with the same.
15. In view of above discussion, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed and the impugned order under appeal dated 16.01.2008 passed by the District Forum is affirmed and upheld. No order as to costs. First Appeal No.246 of 2008:-
16. Similarly, in First Appeal No. 246 of 2008 (Suresh Kumar Kapoor Vs H.D.F.C. Bank Limited), the appellant/complainant is registered owner of Maruti-800 STD E-III car bearing registration no.PB-08-AH-5400, having Chassis No.1643440, Engine No.2292018. The said vehicle was originally got financed from Citicorp Maruti Financial. At the insistence of the officials of the respondent to provide soft vehicle loan @ 9% p.a. which was below the interest being paid to the Citicorp Maruti Financial, the appellant was induced to get her Maruti-800 car re-financed from the respondent after switching over from Citicorp Maruti Financial on 22.05.2006 vide Customer ID No.20126262 and an amount of Rs.1,17,000/- was sanctioned in favour of the appellant and appellant paid Rs.2300/- to the respondent as assessment fee, valuation and file charges etc. The respondent did not release the full payment of Rs.1,17,000/- in favour of the appellant, as promised and released the payment of Rs.1,13,500/- in installments, but did not release the balance amount. The appellant was shocked to know that the respondent instead of issuing vehicle loan @ 9% p.a. to the appellant, had issued O.D. Limit arbitrarily and unauthorizedly. The respondent has been charging interest @ 18% p.a. from the appellant and had been debiting it in O.D. Limit bearing Account No.3412850000072 and also debited huge penalties illegally First Appeal No.231 of 2008 6 for no fault of the appellant. The appellant asked the respondent to treat/convert the O.D. Limit to the vehicle loan, but to no effect.
17. On 07.11.2006, certain unknown bad elements (gundaas) hired by the respondent came to the house of the appellant and tried to take forcible and illegal possession, but with the intervention of the inhabitants of the locality, they were stopped from doing so. The appellant has suffered a lot of harassment and mental tension.
18. It was prayed that the respondent be directed to release the balance amount of Rs.3500/- and to convert/treat the O.D. Limit as vehicle loan @ 9% interest p.a. from the date of sanction and to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.1.00 lac.
19. The complaint was contested by the respondent by filing written reply on the similar lines of its reply filed in F.A. No.231 of 2008.
20. The learned District Forum vide its order dated 16.01.2008 observed that from the documents Ex.OP-3 and Ex.OP-4, it is clear that respondent had agreed to make payment of Rs.1,17,000/- and appellant had signed the promissory note Ex.OP-4 that he is liable to return the amount with 18% interest and there is no deficiency in service, and dismissed the complaint.
21. Keeping in view the fact that appellant executed agreement Ex.OP-3 and Promissory Note Ex.OP-4, undertaking to pay Rs.1,17,000/- along with @ 18% interest to the respondent bank, as well as in view of the reasons and discussion held in First Appeal No.231 of 2008 (Neelam Kumari Vs H.D.F.C. Bank Limited), the First Appeal No. 246 of 2008 (Suresh Kumar Kapoor Vs H.D.F.C. Bank Limited) is dismissed and the impugned order under appeal dated 16.01.2008 passed by the District Forum is affirmed and upheld. No order as to costs.
22. The arguments in both these appeals were heard on 26.10.2012 and the orders were reserved. Now the orders be communicated to the parties.
First Appeal No.231 of 2008 7
23. The appeals could not be decided within the stipulated timeframe due to heavy pendency of court cases.
24. Copy of order be placed in First Appeal No. 246 of 2008 (Suresh Kumar Kapoor Vs H.D.F.C. Bank Limited).
(Inderjit Kaushik) Presiding Member (Baldev Singh Sekhon) Member October 31, 2012.
(Gurmeet S)