State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Hdfc Bank vs Raj Kumar Thakur on 4 April, 2013
CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
PANDRI, RAIPUR(C.G.)
Appeal No.FA/12/395
Instituted on : 27.07.2012
M/s HDFC Bank,
Branch Manager, A Banking Company incorporated
Under Companies Act, 1956 and having its Corporate
Office at Mumbai and inter alia a Branch Office
at Sai Nagar, Devendra Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)
Represented through :-
Mr. Asif Hussain, Assistant Manager and Attorney. ... Appellant.
Vs.
Raj Kumar Thakur, S/o Shri P.N. Singh Thakur,
House No.01, Near Arjun Vihar and Upadhyay Hospital,
Mohoba Bazar, Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent.
PRESENT: -
HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI S.C. VYAS, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE SMT. VEENA MISRA, MEMBER
HON'BLE SHRI V.K.PATIL, MEMBER COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES: -
Shri B. Gopa Kumar, for appellant.
Shri Rakesh Mishra, for respondent.
ORAL ORDER Dated : 04/04/2013 PER: - HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI S. C. VYAS, PRESIDENT The complaint of the respondent / complainant against the appellant / Bank before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (C.G.) (hereinafter called "District Forum" for short) was to the effect that though the complainant has deposited the entire amount of loan by making lump sum payment of Rs.66,100/-, even then the appellant / Bank included his name in the list of defaulter and // 2 // thus, committed deficiency in service by notifying the name of respondent / complainant as defaulter with the CIBIL Bank, so consumer complaint was filed before the District Forum, claiming compensation on the allegation of deficiency in service, which was allowed by the District Forum vide impugned order dated 29.06.2012, passed in Complaint Case No.541/2011 by which the appellant / Bank, has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,28,000/- to the respondent / complainant along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of order till date of payment and also to pay further compensation of Rs.25,000/- for mental agony and Rs.2,000/- as cost of litigation.
2. The case of the complainant before the District Forum, in nutshell, was that he obtained loan of Rs.85,000/- from the appellant / Bank on 08.07.2005 and has paid EMIs @ Rs.3,203/- per month from 08.07.2005 to 27.06.2006. Thereafter lump sum payment of Rs.66,100/- was made by him to the appellant / Bank and in all a sum of Rs.1,09,809/- was paid against loan amount of Rs.85,000/- and after making that lump sum payment, nothing was due against the respondent / complainant, but even then when the respondent / complainant contacted another Bank namely State Bank of India, Home Loan Branch, Byron Bazar, Raipur for the purpose of obtaining home loan for construction of house, then it was informed by that Bank that the respondent / complainant is required to produce No // 3 // Dues Certificate to CIBIL Bank as his name is appearing in the list of defaulter in the appellant / Bank. The complainant alleged deficiency in service against the appellant / Bank and filed consumer complaint before the District Forum.
3. The complaint was resisted by the appellant / Bank and it has been averred in the written version that after payment of lump sum amount of Rs.66,100/-, as per statement of account of the appellant / Bank, Rs.28,802/- was still due against the respondent / complainant, for which notice was also issued to him and when that amount was not paid, then his name was notified to the CIBIL Bank as defaulter and in doing so the appellant / Bank, has not committed any deficiency in service.
4. Learned District Forum did not agree with the defence taken by the appellant / Bank on the ground that if there was some amount due against the respondent / complainant after 2006, then the appellant / Bank was required to issue demand notice or at least to have asked the respondent / complainant to deposit remaining amount before notifying his name to the CIBIL Bank as defaulter. Thus, principle of natural justice was not followed by the appellant / Bank and so it committed deficiency in service and on the basis of this finding adverse order has been recorded against the appellant / Bank.
// 4 //
5. We have heard arguments advanced by both parties and perused the record of the District Forum, as well as the documents, which have been filed before us.
6. Before us along with an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the C.P.C., the appellant / Bank has filed copy of notice dated 20/04/2008 along with copy of dispatch register of the appellant / Bank containing endorsement regarding sending this letter to the respondent / complainant and seal impression of the post office dated 23/04/2008 to show that the post which was entered in the list, has been duly dispatched by the appellant / Bank. From these documents it appears that the notice issued by the appellant on 20.04.2008 to the respondent /complainant informing him that a sum of Rs.21,837.84 is due against his loan account and he was called upon to deposit the amount within 7 days. It has also been informed that the Bank also reserves the right to include name of complainant in the list of defaulters and share the conduct of his loan account with other banks / financial institutions, Credit Information Companies and statutory bodies in accordance with the Credit Information Companies (Regulation) Act, 2005, as amended from time to time. These documents prima facie show that as per statement of account maintained by the appellant / Bank, the loan account of the respondent /complainant was not fully cleared and some amount was // 5 // due, which was also demanded by the Bank, but had not been paid by the complainant. If in these circumstances, the name of the respondent /complainant was included in the list of defaulters and has been notified with the CIBIL Bank and other financial institution, then conduct of the appellant / Bank, cannot be said to be deficiency in service in providing banking services, because it was acting as per its rules, banking rules and as per the statement of account maintained by it.
7. The contention of learned counsel for the respondent is that after payment of lump sum amount of Rs.66,100/- to the appellant / Bank, nothing was due against the respondent / complainant and the loan account was closed as per information given by the appellant / Bank to him at the time of making deposit of Rs.66,100/-, but this appears to be only an oral statement of the complainant, because no document has been brought on record to show that after lump sum payment of Rs.66,100/-, nothing was due against the complainant. Even as per calculation of EMIs fixed between the parties for payment of loan account, the amount was to be paid in 36 installments @ Rs.3,203/- and thus, in all amount of Rs.1,15,308/- plus Rs.3,573/- as cheque bouncing charges was to be paid against which amount of Rs.1,09,809/- was paid by him including amount of 12 installments, so // 6 // it cannot be said that loan account of the complainant was fully cleared and nothing was due.
8. Considering the matter from all angles, we are satisfied that appellant / Bank has not committed any deficiency in service. It appears that learned District Forum has come to a wrong finding, which is not sustainable.
9. Therefore, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The complaint filed by the respondent / complainant before the District Forum is dismissed. No order as to the cost of this appeal.
(Justice S.C.Vyas) (Smt.Veena Misra) (V.K. Patil)
President Member Member
/04/2013 /04/2013 /04/2013