State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Hdfc Bank vs Balwinder Singh on 20 April, 2015
First Additional Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB,
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.781 of 2012
Date of institution: 08.06.2012.
Date of Decision: 20.04.2015.
1. HDFC Bank Ltd., Ratail Assets Division, Third Floor,
Trade Star, BIDG, Opposite J.B.Nagar, Andheri Kurla
Road, Andheri East, Mumbai through its General
Manager.
2. HDFC Bank Ltd., Branch Office Mall Road, Ludhiana
through its Manager.
.....Appellants/Opposite parties.
Versus
Balwinder Singh aged about 55 years, son of Sh.Gurnam Singh,
resident of H.No.179, Jethi Nagar, Khanna, District Ludhiana.
.....Respondent/Complainant.
First Appeal against order dated
31.10.2011 of District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum,
Ludhiana.
Before:-
Shri J.S.Klar, Presiding Judicial Member
Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member Shri Harcharan Singh Guram, Member.
Present:-
For the appellants : Sh.H.S.Bhatia, Advocate For respondent : Ex-parte First Appeal No.781 of 2012 2 VINOD KUMAR GUPTA, MEMBER This appeal has been preferred by the appellants (opposite parties in the complaint) against the respondent of this appeal (complainant in the complaint) under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') against ex-parte order dated 31.10.2011 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana (hereinafter called the 'District Forum') in Consumer Complaint No.452 of 2011, vide which, the complaint of the complainant was allowed and OPs were directed to hand over the original sale deed and other relevant documents, which were in their possession, to the complainant or send them to the concerned branch of the complainant, where the loan amount of the complainant has been transferred. It has been further directed in the order under challenge to pay composite compensation and litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant with 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.
2. The brief facts of the case of the complainant are that Balwinder Singh, complainant filed the complaint under the Act against the opposite parties on the averments that the complainant first availed a loan from ICICI Bank Limited, which was taken over by the Centurion Bank of Punjab Ltd., (now HDFC Bank Ltd., after taking over the Centurion Bank to Punjab Ltd.), an amount of Rs.2,15,000/- was sanctioned for First Appeal No.781 of 2012 3 taking over the loan facility. The original Sale Deed bearing Wasika No.1569 and 1570 were also also received by the OPs along with other documents in the year 2008 from the complainant. However, the OP did not pay the Top Up loan of Rs.2,85,000/- to the complainant, which was earlier sanctioned by them. It was further alleged that the complainant was not satisfied with the service of the OPs and hence, he applied with State Bank of India, G.T.Road, Khanna Branch, Distt. Ludhiana for taking over the credit facility from HDFC Bank Ltd. He obtained a letter from the OPs, which showed a total outstanding amount of Rs.1,92,595.11P on 23.04.2009. It was further pleaded that SBI bank took over the Housing Loan bearing account No.91848567 from the OPs and a demand draft of Rs.1,94,000/- was credited to the account of the complainant in the month of April, 2009. Though all the dues of the OPs were cleared by the new creditor i.e. SBI, but the OPs failed to return the original sale deed Wasika Number 1570 dated 20.08.1996 to the complainant. Since April, 2009, the complainant was running from pillar to post to get his original sale deed back, but he failed to get the original sale deed from the OP. Even letter dated 07.09.2009 sent by SBI to Branch Manager HDFC Bank Ltd. for handing over the original Sale Deed evoked no effect. The complainant has suffered mental agony, physical harassment and he filed the First Appeal No.781 of 2012 4 complaint seeking direction to the OPs to handover the original sale deed and other relevant documents, which were lying in their legal possession of the OPs and to pay Rs.7.00 Lacs as per the averments in the complaint and Rs.3.00 Lacs as compensation alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of clearance till realization to the complainant.
3. Upon notice, OP No.2 was duly served, but did not appear and was proceeded ex-parte, vide order dated 04.08.2011, whereas, the notice was sent to OP No.1 through registered post on 05.09.2011, the same was not received back. He was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 10.10.2011.
4. The complainant in his ex-parte evidence tendered his affidavit Ex.CA and other documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-6 and closed the evidence. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum Ludhiana, allowed the complaint of complainant by directing OPs to handover the original sale deed and other relevant documents, which were in the their possession to the complainant or send them to the concerned branch of the complainant, where the loan account of the complainant has been transferred. Further OPs were directed to pay compensation and litigation costs compositively assessed of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant on account of First Appeal No.781 of 2012 5 mental harassment. Dissatisfied with this order of District Forum Ludhiana, the OPs now appellants have preferred this appeal against the same.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants as the respondent was proceeded ex-parte on 03.09.2012. We have also gone though the record of the case.
6. As per the affidavit Ex-CA of Balwinder Singh Consultant, he deposed that first he availed a loan from ICICI Bank, which was taken over by the Centurion Bank of Punjab Limited now HDFC Bank Limited after taking over of the Centurion Bank of Punjab Limited. An amount of Rs.2,15,000/- was sanctioned for taking over the loan facility. The loan was taken over by the OP from the ICICI Bank Ltd and the original sale deed bearing Wasika No.1569 & 1570 was also received by the OPs alongwith the other documents in the year of 2008. The OP however, did not pay the top-up of Rs.2,85,000/- to the complainant, which were earlier sanctioned by them. It was further deposed that the complainant was not satisfied with the service of the OPs, then he applied with the State Bank of India, G.T.Road, Khanna Branch, District Ludhiana for taking over credit facility from HDFC Bank Ltd. Total outstanding amount of Rs.1,92,595.11p was outstanding in the name of the First Appeal No.781 of 2012 6 complainant and a demand draft of Rs.1,94,000/- was credited in the account of the complainant in the month of April, 2009. The second letter issued by the Centurion Bank of Punjab Ltd. now HDFC Bank Ltd dated 25.03.2008 are also placed on the record vide Ex.C-1 and C-2.
7. In the instant case, the main dispute is that the original Sale Deed of Wasika No.1570 dated 20.08.1996 was not returned to the complainant as per the version of the complainant and photocopy of the Wasika No.1570 is placed on record vide Ex.C-5. The OPs were proceeded ex-parte before the District Forum so the OPs could not contest the allegations made by the complainant in the complaint. The appellants/OPs filed the appeal in which it was stated that the original Sale Deed No.569 dated 20.08.1996 was given at the time of taking loan and the same was returned to the complainant and he signed the same as a token of receipt of the said documents alongwith the other documents. We have perused the property loan facility agreement, in which, the second schedule (list of title deed), in which, it was mentioned at serial No.1 the original sale deed dated 20.08.1996. We have perused the letter dated 02.06.2009 in which, sale deed Wasika No.1569 was released to the complainant. It is clear that the complainant had deposited only one original Sale Deed Wasika No.1569 dated 20.08.1996. The complainant First Appeal No.781 of 2012 7 had not deposited the Sale Deed of Wasika 1570 at the time of taking the loan. The complainant has not placed on record any document to show that the title deed in respect of property of Wasika No.1570 was deposited in the bank. The District Forum has directed the OPs to handover the original sale deed and other documents, which are in the possession to the complainant or to send them to the concerned branch of the complainant, where the loan amount of the complainant was transferred. But, the District Forum has not mentioned what documents have to be returned to the complainant, whereas as per the OPs, original Sale dated 1569 dated 20.08.1996 and other documents were handed over to the complainant and the complainant gave the acknowledgement as a token of receipt of the documents vide letter dated 02.06.2009 and no protest letter has been placed on record by the complainant regarding Wasika No.1570 dated 20.08.1996 and the District Forum did not appreciate the evidence on the record vide letter dated 02.06.2009. District Forum relied upon the letter dated 07.09.2009, vide Ex.C-6 which was sent by State Bank of India to HDFC Bank Limited. So, the order of the District Forum can not be sustained. No deficiency in service on the part of the OPs is proved on the record.
8. Sequel to the above discussions, the appeal filed by the appellant is accepted. The order of the District Forum is First Appeal No.781 of 2012 8 hereby set-aside. Consequently, the complaint filed by the complainant is hereby dismissed without any order as to costs.
9. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs.5,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount with interest, if any, be remitted by the registry to the appellant No.1 by way of a cross cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days.
10. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 10.04.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(J.S.Klar)
Presiding Judicial Member
(Vinod Kumar Gupta)
Member
April 20, 2015 (H.S.Guram)
Lb/- Member