National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Hdfc Bank Limited vs Javeed Parvez on 20 September, 2018
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 2505 OF 2015 (Against the Order dated 20/03/2015 in Appeal No. 228/2014 of the State Commission Delhi) 1. HDFC BANK LIMITED HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT HDFC BANK,BAPAT MARG, LOWER PAREL(WEST) MUMBAI - 400013 MAHARASHTRA ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. JAVEED PARVEZ S/O SHRI SHABBIR-UL-HAQUE, R/O HOUSE NO-D-106/613, STREET NO-1,CHAUHAN BAMGER, NEW SEELAMPUR, DELHI - 110 053 ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. ANUP K THAKUR,PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. C. VISWANATH,MEMBER For the Petitioner : MR. RISHAB RAJ JAIN For the Respondent : IN PERSON Dated : 20 Sep 2018 ORDER PER MR. C. VISWANATH, MEMBER The present Revision Petition is filed by the Petitioner under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the "State Commission") in Appeal No. FA/228/2014 dated 20.03.2015.
Respondent availed a USED CAR LOAN of Rs. 1.5 lakhs for buying a Maruti WagonR VXI, bearing registration No. DL 3CM 9842. The loan was to be cleared in 36 Equated Monthly Installments (EMI) each at the rate of Rs. 5,200/-. According to the Respondent, he was operating his Saving Bank Account in State Bank of India and instructed the Petitioner Bank to clear EMIs directly from his Bank through Electronic Clearing System (ECS). It is alleged that since the beginning, the Petitioner made a mistake in filling the ECS Number but the Bank of the Respondent cleared the first three ECS presented by the Petitioner. Thereafter, Respondent's Bank stopped clearing the payment of ECS presented by the Petitioner, despite adequate balance in the account, due to wrong mentioning of the ECS Number by the Petitioner. Whenever Respondent's Bank stopped to clear the ECS presented by the Petitioner, the Officials of the Petitioner approached the Respondent directly and asked for payment of EMI in cash and Respondent paid the same. The Respondent paid EMIs directly in cash to the officials of the Petitioner, just to maintain his agreement with the Petitioner. ECS of the Petitioner bounced due to their own fault i.e. mentioning of wrong ECS number but the Petitioner imposed penalty of bouncing charges of ECS on the Respondent. Thereafter the Petitioner accepted their fault and promised to waive the said penalty. Despite written reminders, however, the Petitioner did not waive off the same. Thereupon, the Respondent settled the loan account by repaying the loan amount in full to the Petitioner Bank. Petitioner Bank issued No Objection Certificate in favour of the Respondent, by terminating the loan agreement in the name of the Respondent on 20.06.2011. As the name was not deleted from the list of defaulters and appeared on the website of Credit Information Bureau India Limited (CIBIL), the Respondent was unable to avail the services of other Banks. The Respondent requested the Petitioner Bank to get his name deleted from the defaulters list and pay him Compensation.
The Respondent filed a complaint in the District Forum with a prayer to direct the Petitioner to remove his name from the list of defaulters on the Bank site so that he could deal with other Banks. He also sought Compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for mental pain and Rs. 11,000/- towards Litigation Costs.
Notice of the Complaint was sent to the Petitioner through speed post on 02.05.2013, but none appeared for the Petitioner before the District Forum and the matter was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 02.07.2012.
The District Forum, vide order dated 18.11.2013, allowed the Complaint and directed the Petitioner to inform CIBIL that it has closed the loan account of the Respondent and no balance amount was due for payment by the account holder. Further, Petitioner was directed to pay to the Complainant Rs. 15,000/- as compensation for causing harassment, pain and mental agony and Rs, 5,000/- towards cost of litigation.
Against the above Order, the Petitioner filed an Appeal before the State Commission. State Commission, vide order dated 20.03.2015, dismissed the appeal of the Petitioner and confirmed the order passed by the District Forum. Being aggrieved by the orders passed by the State Commission, Petitioner has preferred the present Revision Petition on the following grounds:-
• Petitioner cannot be penalized in view of Clause 22.5 of the Loan Agreement executed with the Respondent.
• The State Commission had erred in not appreciating the fact that the Petitioner was never served with summons/notice of the District Forum.
• State Commission has not appreciated the fact that the Petitioner has acted in due course of banking activity and in terms with the CICRA.
• As per the contents of State Commission Order, it is an admitted fact that after availing the loan amount, the Respondent paid only few loan installments and thereafter started defaulting in repayment of loan amount.
According to the Petitioner, the Respondent did not pay the EMI as per the repayment schedule and all 8 EMIs were dishonored at the first presentation. Accordingly, the actual payment pattern as well as delay in payment of EMIs has been reported to CIBIL. The Respondent entered into settlement with the Petitioner and requested for waiver, which was accepted by the Petitioner and after taking loan amount, waiver was offered, which has been captured and narrated in the statement of Loan Account as well as updated to CIBIL. Accordingly, NOC was issued to the Respondent. The Petitioner further contends that issuance of NOC cannot constitute prefect credit listing. The District Forum has not appreciated the fact that notice of Complaint was not served and they were proceeded ex-parte and hence the Petitioner could not defend the matter on merit.
Heard both the Parties. The Petitioner was represented by its Counsel, while the Respondent appeared in person. They argued on lines of above mentioned narration. Hearing carefully listened to their arguments and perusing the record, we are inclined to agree with the concurrent findings of both the Foras below.
RBI letter, CSD. RPS/3624/20.41.01/ 2009-10 dated 4/11/09, is also very categorical. "Banks should initiate prompt updation of CIBIL records, including deletion of customers names from the date base once loans are repaid/amounts written off/ charges reversed as a sequel to the complaint and attendant actions thereof. Further the data may be modified to read as "resolved" instead of written off so that the credit history of the concerned is not jeopardized in the records of CIBIL and repeat complaints are avoided on that score".
It is very clear from the above letter that Reserve Bank of India expects prompt action from the Banks to update CIBIL records. Even if the amounts are 'written off', it should be mentioned as 'resolved' so that the credit history of the Customer is not tarnished and he may avail further advances from the Banks. In the present Case, the Petitioner Bank has grossly failed to follow the instructions of RBI. Nothing has also been placed on record by the Petitioner to show that the name of the Respondent would continue in the CIBIL list, even after clearance of the loan.
Both the Foras have observed that once the Loan Agreement was terminated by the Petitioner, it was the Petitioner's duty to inform CIBIL that the holder of the loan account i.e. Respondent was not a defaulter and he has complied with all the terms of the Loan Agreement. Not doing the same, is clearly a deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioner.
As per learned Counsel of the Petitioner, he was not given chance to be heard on merits by the District Forum. Though, he was given a chance before the State Commission, he has failed to place any material document to prove his contentions.
In view of the above, the present Revision Petition stands dismissed on merits and orders passed by the District Forum and State Commission in the Complaint Case are upheld.
...................... ANUP K THAKUR PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... C. VISWANATH MEMBER