State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Hdfc Bank Ltd vs Shilpi Siddiqui & Anr on 20 April, 2026
FA/388/2024 HDFC BANK VS. MRS. SHILPI SIDDIQUI DOD: 20.04.2026
IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION
Date of Institution: 29.05.2024
Date of Hearing: 28.11.2025
Date of Decision: 20.04.2026
FIRST APPEAL NO. 388/2024
IN THE MATTER OF
HDFC BANK LIMITED,
THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE - MR. NAMAN JAIN, MGR.
(LEGAL)
OFFICE AT:
UNIT NO. 100 A-1,
THE CAPITAL COURT,
MUNIRKA, OUTER RING ROAD,
OLOF PALME MARG,
NEW DELHI-110067.
REGISTERED OFFICE AT:
HDFC BANK LTD., HDFC BANK HOUSE,
SENAPATI BAPAT MARG,
LOWER PAREL (WEST),
MUMBAI-400013.
(Through: Mr. Sourav Kumar Jena, Advocate)
...Appellant
Versus
1. MRS. SHILPI SIDDIQUI,
W/O. LATE MR. SALIM SHAVAS SIDDIQUI,
R/O. FLAT NO. 6C,
MUKUND APARTMENTS
16, YAMUNA ROAD,
CIVIL LINES,
NEW DELHI-110054.
(Through: Mr. Varun Agarwal & Mr. Sachin, Advocates)
...Respondent No. 1
DISMISSED PAGE 1 OF 15
FA/388/2024 HDFC BANK VS. MRS. SHILPI SIDDIQUI DOD: 20.04.2026
2. HDFC LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
THROUGH ITS CEO & MANAGING DIRECTOR,
13TH FLOOR, LODHA EXCELUS,
APOLLO MILLS COMPOUND,
NM JOSHI MARG,
MAHALAXMI,
MUMBAI-400011.
ALSO AT:
5TH FLOOR, ILFS BUILDING,
PLOT NO. C-22, G-BLOCK,
BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX,
BANDRA (EAST),
MUMBAI-400051.
(Through: Mr. Kanishk Dev Sharma, Advocate)
...Respondent No. 2
DISMISSED PAGE 2 OF 15
FA/388/2024 HDFC BANK VS. MRS. SHILPI SIDDIQUI DOD: 20.04.2026
CORAM:
HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)
HON'BLE MS. BIMLA KUMARI, MEMBER (FEMALE)
Present: Mr. Sourav Kumar Jena, Counsel for the Appellant.
Mr. Varun Agarwal and Mr. Sachin, Counsel for the Respondent No.1.
Mr. Kanishk Dev Sharma, Counsel for the Respondent No. 2.
PER: HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, PRESIDENT
JUDGMENT
1. The facts of the case as per the District Commission record are as:
"1. By way of this order, we shall be disposing the application filed by the Complainant by which he has sought directions against the OPs herein. Briefly stated, the Complainant is the wife of one Late Shri Salim Shavas Siddiqui, who was insured and policy holder of the life insurance policy issued by M/s HDFC Life Insurance Company Limited (OP-2 herein) securing the home loan that was extended to him by M/s HDFC Ltd. (OP-1 herein). As the said insured expired, the Complainant herein lodged the insurance claim with OP-2 for payment of the balance outstanding loan of the OP-1. The said claim was repudiated by the OP-2 and the outstanding loan of OP-1 was not cleared by OP-2. The Complainant challenged the said repudiation in the complaint and the sought a direction, inter alia, for the OP-2 to repay the outstanding amount of the loan of OP-1. Although, in the complaint, the Complainant has not sought any specific relief qua OP-1, by way of this application, the Complainant has sought a direction against OP-1 from desisting from any coercive action against the Complainant for recovery of the outstanding loan amount till disposal of this complaint."
DISMISSED PAGE 3 OF 15 FA/388/2024 HDFC BANK VS. MRS. SHILPI SIDDIQUI DOD: 20.04.2026
2. The District Commission after taking into consideration the material available on record passed the order dated 15.04.2024, whereby it held as under:
"2. We have issued notice on this application to both the OPs. Both the OPs have filed their respective replies. We have also heard the arguments of the parties before reserving the order on the application. In the meantime, by way of continuous interim orders, the OP-1 was directed not to take any coercive action against the Complainant. The interim order is still continuing till today.
3. In its reply, OP-2 Insurance Company has argued for dismissal of the application in view of their argument that complaint is not maintainable. However as the merits of the complaint is yet to be finally decided, we cannot accept the argument of non-maintainability of the complaint at this stage of deciding the application.
4. OP-1, against whom the prayer of the Complainant in this application is sought, has also filed its reply and the application was argued by Ld. Advocate for OP-1 at length.
5. The Complainant has primarily argued that as the OP-2 Insurance Company has not made the payment of the outstanding loan in accordance with the insurance policy, the loan with the OP-1 remains unpaid. In view of outstanding loan, the OP-1 may initiate recovery proceedings against the Complainant under the relevant law and dispose of the property in question against which the loan was sanctioned by OP-1, if the protection is not granted to the Complainant. Further, if the property is disposed of and loan is recovered by OP-1, in case the Complainant herein succeeding in this case primarily against OP-2 and OP-2 also making the payment in accordance with the policy in question, OP-1 would not be in a position to put the Complainant back in possession of the property in question, against which the loan was sanctioned by OP-1.
DISMISSED PAGE 4 OF 15 FA/388/2024 HDFC BANK VS. MRS. SHILPI SIDDIQUI DOD: 20.04.2026
6. OP-1, in its reply as well as during arguments argued that the OP-1 s well within its right to recover the outstanding loan using the legal remedies as available under the provisions of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act, 2002). However, on our specific enquiry that if the OP-1 banks recovers the outstanding loan by way of auctioning the property in question in terms of the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2002, and if the complainant succeeds before this Commission and OP-2 make the payment of the insurance claim, then whether the OP-1 shall be in position to hand over the possession of the property in question back to the Complainant, it was stated by Ld. Advocate for the OP- 1 that in such situation, the Complainant will be having the entire insurance claim amount in her hand which can be used to acquire another property. At this stage, Ld. Advocate for the Complainant has also argued that the Borrower husband of the Complainant expired on 21.08.2021 and if the stay is not granted in favour of the Complainant, she will be adversely prejudiced. It is also stated that since the death of the insured borrower till 11.09.2023, when this Commission granted the interim relief for the first time since filing of the Complainant, the OP-1 had not initiated any coercive action including any proceedings under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2002 against the Complainant. He further argues that as the OP-1 has not initiated any coercive action against the Complainant, the continuation of interim order till disposal of the complainant will not cause any prejudice to either of the parties.
7. At this stage, Ld. Advocate for the OP-1 argues that this Commission does not have any power to stop the OP-1 from initiating the proceedings under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2002 as the SARFEASI Act, 2002 is a special legislation, which overrides the provisions of the general legislation like Consumer Protection Act. He has also relied on the judgment DISMISSED PAGE 5 OF 15 FA/388/2024 HDFC BANK VS. MRS. SHILPI SIDDIQUI DOD: 20.04.2026 of Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the matter of Punjab National Bank vs Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum [AIR 2012 Ker 8], by which Hon'ble Kerala High Court has opined that Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (CDRF) (as District Consumer Commission was called under CPA, 1986), has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint against the bank as the remedies under CPA, 1986 are barred by the provisions of the SARFEASI Act, 2002. In the said judgment, Hon'ble Kerala High Court has held as under:
"17. I am in respectful agreement with those decisions. The ratio of those decisions clearly applies to the Consumer Protection Act also on all fours. Therefore, resort to the remedy provided under the Consumer Protection Act is clearly barred by the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. The result of the above discussion is that the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain any complaint in respect of any measures taken by a Bank or a Financial Institution under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and the CDRF has no jurisdiction to give any relief whatsoever against the same. It is declared so."
8. It is indeed a fact that under section 34 of the SARFEASI Act 2002 bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court which includes Consumer Commissions, but such bar only applies if the banking or financial institution has already initiated the proceedings under the provisions of the SARFEASI Act, 2002. In this context, reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sree Anandhakumar Mills Ltd. v. Indian Overseas Bank [(2019) 14 SCC 788) in which Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that once the Bank has initiated the measures under the provisions of the SARFEASI Act, the civil courts cannot examine such measures.
9. In the case before Hon'ble Kerala High Court in PNB Case (Supra), the Bank had already initiated the proceedings DISMISSED PAGE 6 OF 15 FA/388/2024 HDFC BANK VS. MRS. SHILPI SIDDIQUI DOD: 20.04.2026 against the Borrower before the said Borrower approached the CDRF. In such a situation, Hon'ble Kerala High Court held that the measures adopted by the Petitioner Bank cannot be entertained by the CDRF. In the case before us, till date, the OP-1 Bank has not initiated any proceedings under the provisions of the SARFEASI Act, 2002.
10. On the aspect of Consumer Protection Act, 2002 being a general legislation, Ld. Advocate for the Complainant has relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Vodafone Idea Cellular Ltd vs Ajay Kumar Aggarwal [(2022) 6 SCC748], in which Hon'ble Supreme Court has recognised the erstwhile CPA, 1986 as a special legislation. In the Vodafone case (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly held that the CPA 1986 is not a general law, but a special law. After the CPA, 1986 was replaced by the CPA, 2019, the nature of the new legislation also remains the same-a special law.
11. It is also to be noted here that in Vodafone case (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held that the later legislation would override the provisions of the earlier law. In the case in hand, the instant complaint was filed under the provisions of the CPA, 2019, which is clearly a later legislation in comparison to SARFEASI Act, 2002. Hence, the provisions of the CPA, 2019 would override the provisions of the SARFEASI Act, 2002. In such a situation, when the CPA, 2019 overrides SARFEASI Act, 2002, the Complainant has a choice of forum for adjudication of his grievances under section 100 of the CPA, 2019, Section 100 of the CPA. 2019 makes the provisions of the CPA, 2019 "in addition to" and "not in derogation of any provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Hence, the Complainant gets an additional remedy under the CPA, 2019 for Redressal of his grievances. Furthermore, approaching the authorities under the provisions of SARFEASI Act, 2002 by the Complainant herein is possible only if the OP-1 initiates any proceedings DISMISSED PAGE 7 OF 15 FA/388/2024 HDFC BANK VS. MRS. SHILPI SIDDIQUI DOD: 20.04.2026 of recovery under the said legislation. In the instant case, the OP-1 Bank has not taken any measures or initiated any recovery proceedings under section 13 and/or Section 17 of the SARFEASI Act, 2002.
12. Now coming on the aspect of prayer of interim relief as prayed by the Complainant herein, we are of the opinion that as OP-2 insurance company insured and secured the home loan, it would be in the interest of justice to protect the interest of the Complainant and to prevent the OP-1 from alienating the property in question for recovering the outstanding loan.
13. While dealing with the grant of interim relief against the Public Authority, Hon'ble Supreme Court, while deciding the case in the matter of CCE v. Dunlop India Ltd. [(1985) 1 SCC 260] has opined that while granting interim relief, the Court must weigh balance of convenience, the public interest and a host of other relevant considerations. Hon'ble Supreme Court has also observed in the said judgment that in cases where denial of interim relief may lead to public mischief, grave irreparable private injury or shake a citizen's faith in the impartiality of public administration, a court may well be justified in granting interim relief against public authority. There are no hard and fast rules for granting interim relief. But prudence, discretion and circumspection are called for. There are several other vital considerations apart from the existence of a prima facie case. There is the question of balance of convenience. There is the question of irreparable injury. There is the question of the public interest. There are many such factors worthy of consideration.
14. In the case in hand, while applying the guidelines as lid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Dunlop India (supra), we are of the opinion that the balance of convenience, possible irreparable loss to the Complainant, and interest of justice would be served if the OPs are DISMISSED PAGE 8 OF 15 FA/388/2024 HDFC BANK VS. MRS. SHILPI SIDDIQUI DOD: 20.04.2026 prevented from taking any coercive action against the Complainant herein.
15. We accordingly direct that till the final disposal of the complaint, the OP-1 and OP-2 shall not take any coercive action against the Complainant herein. In terms of aforesaid direction, this application filed by the Complainant is disposed of.
16. There is another application pending for adjudication. The said application was filed by OP-2 seeking permission to file typed copy of the documents which were earlier filed along with the WS of the OP-2. For the reasons explained in the application, the said application is allowed. The typed copy of the documents is taken on record. The application filed by OP-2 is also disposed of.
17. The Complainant has not filed the rejoinder qua WS of OP-2. Complainant is directed to file her rejoinder qua WS of OP-2 and the evidence affidavit. Let the same be done on or before the next date of hearing. List the matter for further proceedings on 31.05.2024."
3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the District Commission, the Appellant has preferred the present Appeal contending that the District Commission has erred in putting a restraining order restricting the only available remedy to the Appellant under the SARFAESI Act, 2002. It is further submitted that Section 34 and Section 35 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 bar the jurisdiction of any civil court to adjudicate the pending proceedings. It is submitted by the Appellant that this Commission lacks the jurisdiction to adjudicate the proceedings of the case at hand. It has also been submitted that if the claim of the Respondent No. 1 is processed by the Respondent No. 2, then the Respondent No. 1 will have enough monetary compensation to acquire another property. Pressing the aforesaid submissions and contentions, the Appellant has prayed for setting aside the impugned order.
DISMISSED PAGE 9 OF 15 FA/388/2024 HDFC BANK VS. MRS. SHILPI SIDDIQUI DOD: 20.04.2026
4. The Respondent No. 1 has filed the Reply to Appeal, denying all the contentions and submissions of the Appellant and submitted that there is no error in the impugned order as the entire material available on record was properly scrutinized before passing the said impugned order. It is further submitted that the Appellant has not initiated any action against the Respondent No. 1 under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, therefore, no harm would come to the Appellant if no action is taken by the Appellant during the pendency of the present matter at hand. Further, it is submitted that the Appellant had sanctioned a loan amount of Rs. 70,00,000/- (Rupees Seventy Lakh Only) to buy the flat in question for a total consideration of Rs. 89,52,125/- (Rupees Eighty-Nine Lakh Fifty-Two Thousand One-Hundred and Twenty-Five Thousand Only), whereas an amount of only Rs.18,79,956/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakh Seventy-Nine Thousand Nine-Hundred and Fifty-Six Only) was disbursed till date, however, the Appellant wishes to take the entire property without having paid the entire sanctioned loan amount. The Respondent No. 1 has also relied on Section 38(8) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, contending that the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 grants the District Commission to grant any interim relief, even if the same includes injunction. Pressing the aforesaid submissions and contentions, the Respondent No. 1 has prayed for setting aside the present Appeal.
5. The Respondent No. 2 has not filed the Reply to Appeal.
6. Written Arguments of the Appellant are on record, wherein the contents of the Appeal have been reiterated and the same have been considered. The Counsel for the Appellant has relied on the following judgments in support of his case:
i) CA No. 2924 of 2023 titled Punjab & Sind Bank vs. Frontline Corporation Ltd. as decided on 18.04.2023.
DISMISSED PAGE 10 OF 15
FA/388/2024 HDFC BANK VS. MRS. SHILPI SIDDIQUI DOD: 20.04.2026
ii) WP (C) No. 41680 of 2023 titled The Chief Manager cum
Authorized Officer, Union Bank of India Jharsuguda vs. Rajesh Kumar Agarwal & Anr. as decided on 01.07.2024
iii) RSA No. 231 of 2023 titled Nishant Guleria vs. Punjab National Bank & Anr. as decided on 02.01.2024
7. Written Arguments of the Respondent No. 1 are on record, wherein the contents of the Reply to Appeal have been reiterated and the same have been considered. The Counsel for the Appellant has relied on Mardia Chemicals Limited & Others vs. Union of India & Others as reported in (2004) 4 SCC 311F in support of their case.
8. Written Arguments of the Respondent No. 2 are on record, wherein it submitted that the claim of the Respondent No. 1 was repudiated as the cause of death of the Deceased Life Assured (hereinafter referred to as DLA) was "syncope as a result of coronary artery disease" and that the DLA failed to disclose that he was diagnosed with "Left Ventricular Hypertrophy, Grade-I fatty liver and elevated blood sugar level", which amounted to the material facts that were not disclosed by the DLA. It is further submitted that due to the DLA failing to disclose material facts and suppressing material information, the claim of the Respondent No. 1 was repudiated. The Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 has relied on the following judgments in support of his case:
i) Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. vs. Rekhaben Nareshbhai Rathod as reported in 2019 (6) SCC 175
ii) P.C. Chacko and Anr. vs. Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India and Ors as reported in AIR 2008 SC 2024
iii) Satwant Kaur Sandhu vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. as reported in (2009) 8 SCC 316
iv) Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors. vs. Smt. Asha Goel & Anr. as reported in (2001) ACJ 806 DISMISSED PAGE 11 OF 15 FA/388/2024 HDFC BANK VS. MRS. SHILPI SIDDIQUI DOD: 20.04.2026
v) V.K. Srinivasa Setty vs. Premier LGI Co. is reported in Mysore HC 1958
vi) NCDRC Revision Petition No. 470 of 2015 titled ICICI Prudential Life Insurance vs. Yashika Alias Meera & Ors. as decided on 04.11.2015
vii) NCDRC Revision Petition No. 470 of 2013 titled Roshan Lal vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India as decided on 18.09.2015
viii) Revision Petition No. 1061 of 2011 titled LIC of India & Ors. vs. Ramamani Patra & Anr. as decided on 03.08.2015
ix) Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. vs. Garg Sons International as decided on 2013 (1) SCALE 410
x) Suraj Mal Ram Niwas Oil Mills (P) Ltd. vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. as reported in (2010) 10 SCC 567
xi) Revision Petition No. 211 of 2009 titled Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Madhavacharya as decided on 02.02.2010
xii) United India Insurance Co. Limited vs. Harchand Rai Chand Rai Chandanlal as reported in I (2003) CPJ 393
xiii) Vikram Greentech (I) Ltd. & Anr. vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. as reported in II (2009) CPJ 34
xiv) Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Munimahesh Patel as reported in 2006 (2) CPC 668 SC
xv) Janta Machine Tools vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. as reported in I (1991) CPJ 234 (NC) xvi) Panalal vs. Bank of India & Others as reported in II (1992) CPJ 487 (NC) xvii) NCDRC Revision Petition No. 4535 of 2013 titled Rakesh Sharma vs. ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. as decided on 04.03.2014 DISMISSED PAGE 12 OF 15 FA/388/2024 HDFC BANK VS. MRS. SHILPI SIDDIQUI DOD: 20.04.2026
9. We have carefully perused the material available on record.
10.The main question for consideration before us is whether the impugned order passed by the District Commission suffers from any infirmity.
11.To deal with this issue, we deem it necessary to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.(s) 7214-7216 of 2012 titled M/s. Sree Anandhakumar Mills Ltd. vs. M/s. Indian Overseas Bank And Ors. as decided on 03.05.2018, which provides as under:
"4. The matter need not engage the Court in any great detail as in view of the law laid down by this Court in Jagdish Singh vs. Heeralal and others1 it would clear and evident that the suit filed by the second respondent (i.e. O.S. No.106 of 2009) is not maintainable. In Jagdish Singh (supra) this Court after an elaborate consideration of the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, particularly, Section 2 (zf), 2 (zc), 13(1), 17, 18 and 34, took the view, on almost similar facts, that a suit for partition would not be maintainable in a situation where proceedings under the SARFAESI Act had been initiated. It was also held that the remedy of any person aggrieved by the initiation of proceedings under the SARFAESI Act lies under Section 1 (2014) 1 SCC 479 17 which provides for an efficacious and adequate remedy to a party aggrieved."
12.Analysis of the aforesaid dicta reflects that the proceedings for recovery of a loan amount are not maintainable if the bank or the recovery agency has initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, 2002. In the present case, the Appellant wishes to get relief under Section 34 and Section 35 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. However, the Respondent No. 1 had filed the Complaint in the present case before the District Commission. Therefore, during the pendency of the said proceedings, the Appellant cannot initiate any proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, 2002.
DISMISSED PAGE 13 OF 15 FA/388/2024 HDFC BANK VS. MRS. SHILPI SIDDIQUI DOD: 20.04.2026
13.At this juncture, we deem it necessary to refer to Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, which provides as under:
"34. Civil Court not to have jurisdiction.- No Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which a Debts Recovery Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal is empowered by or under this Act to determine and no injunction shall be granted by any Court or other authority in respect of any action or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act or under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (51 of 1993)"
14.Perusal of the aforesaid statutory position, it is clear that the civil court will have no jurisdiction in granting injunction in the present case, however, we find that the District Commission has splendidly held that despite the Consumer Fora being civil courts for the purpose of Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is a special legislation, therefore, an injunction can be granted by the District Commission with respect to the present case.
15.In view of the foregoing, we are in agreement with the reasons given by the District Commission and fail to find any cause or reason to reverse the findings of the District Commission. Consequently, the contents of the Judgment dated 15.04.2024 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission- I, North 2 and 3, Ground Floor Annexe-II, Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi- 110054, stands upheld with no order as to costs.
16.The matter is pending for adjudication before the District Commission since 31.05.2024 at the stage of the Respondent No. 1 filing her Rejoinder and the evidence affidavit, however, the Appellant had preferred the present Appeal before this Commission on 29.05.2024. Therefore, the parties are directed to appear before the District Commission on 21.05.2026.
DISMISSED PAGE 14 OF 15 FA/388/2024 HDFC BANK VS. MRS. SHILPI SIDDIQUI DOD: 20.04.2026
17.Application(s) pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
18.A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on https://e-jagriti.gov.in for perusal of the parties. A copy of this judgment be also sent to the concerned District Commission.
19.File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this Judgment.
(JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL) PRESIDENT (BIMLA KUMARI) MEMBER (FEMALE) Pronounced On: 20.04.2026 LR-DK DISMISSED PAGE 15 OF 15