State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Arvind Jain vs Hsbc Bank Ltd. on 6 October, 2010
IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 clause (b)of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ) Date of Decision: 06-10-2010 Case No. FA-08/1050 (Arising from the order dated 21-10-2008 passed in complaint case No. 426/07 by the District Consumer Redressal Forum I, Tis Hazari, Delhi). ARVIND JAIN, - APPELLANT S/o Late Shri M.C. Jain, R/O 88-A, Second Floor, Kamla Nagar, Delhi - 110007. Versus HSBC BANK LTD., - RESPONDENT Personal Banking, K-14-18, Sector 18, Noida, U.P. CORAM : JUSTICE BARKAT ALI ZAIDI - President M.L. SAHNI - Member 1. Whether reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? SHRI M.L. SAHNI (ORAL) ORDER
1. This Appeal by the Complainant is directed against the order dated 21-10-2008, passed by the District Forum (North) Tis Hazari, Delhi, dismissing the complaint of the Appellant holding that there was no deficiency-in-service on the part of the OP/Respondent. The impugned order on the face of it is non-speaking and cryptic without, revealing full facts of case. Hence we shall have to revert to the complaint copy of which has been filed on record, to learn about the allegations made therein by the Appellant.
2. Briefly stated facts are that Appellant had taken a personal loan from the Respondent Bank which had already been cleared. It is alleged that the Appellant started receiving calls from the Respondent from time to time to make the payment of the above loan account and also sent E.C.clearing to the banker of the Appellant. Further officials and goonda elements also started visiting the residence of the Appellant to collect the amount towards loan account.
3. Aggrieved by this conduct of the Respondents, Appellant filed complaint case No. 426/07 before the District Forum praying for directions to the OP/Respondent to desist sending the ECS to his Banker i.e. ABN Amro Bank Ltd., and also to pay Rs. 30,000/- for causing him mental agony and harassment etc with cost of litigation.
4. The Respondents as OP contested the complaint by filing written version/reply categorically submitting in para 7 of their reply as follows:
.that though the payment was collected from the complainant but inadvertently due to human error same could not be uploaded on the system and hence outstanding in said loan was not reversed. Further, on account of non-reversal of outstanding, the system kept on sending ECS to the banker of the Complainant i.e. ABN Amro Bank. The Respondent has now rectified its error by stopping the ECS and will be closing the account as settled. It is specifically and vehemently denied that any goonda type persons or officials of the OP are visiting the residence of the Complainant for payments or that the Respondent is calling on the Complainant through telephone from time to time to make any payment. It shall also be relevant to mention here that the complainant has never represented to the OP qua the subject matter of the complaint, otherwise the matter would have been taken care of then and there.
5. The Ld. District Forum in the impugned order, observed that the statement dated 17-8-2006 had reflected a balance of Rs. 14,851/- as principle loan amount and computer software did not show full and final settlement on 16-08-2006, which was later-on rectified and since no amount was recovered toward balance of Rs. 14,851/- by the OP, therefore, the problem of the computer not picking up an amount cannot be said to be deficiency-in-service on the part of the OP, when no amount has been paid by the complainant as interest or penalty for not depositing this amount. No findings have been recorded with reference to allegations made in the complaint about calls made for payment, sending ECS to the Banker of the Complainant/Appellant or visiting of officials at the residence of the Complainant/Appellant.
6. We have heard the Ld. Counsel representing the Appellant and the Respondents. We have gone through the material on record, especially, the copy of the Reply/Written Statement of the Respondent filed before the District Forum.
7. There is clear and categorical admission on the part of the OP/Respondent that though payment was collected from the Complainant but inadvertently due to human error same could not be uploaded on the system and hence outstanding in the said loan was not reversed. Further, on account of non-reversal of outstanding, the system kept on sending ECS to the banker of the complainant i.e. ABN Amro Bank. The Respondents later on rectified their error by stopping the ECS and closed the accounts as settled.
8. The Respondent Bank have furnished copy of the letter dated 18-07-2009 written to the Appellant with regard to his personal loan Account No. 052005345872, intimating that said loan had been closed. The complaint was filed in 2007 and even this appeal also pertains to the year 2008 and now vide letter dated 18-07-2009, the Respondents are informing him about the closing of his account. What is the relevance of this letter now at this stage is incomprehensible by us.
9. The short question posed by the Appellant in this appeal is whether despite having received full and final settled amount towards loan account from the Appellant, sending of the ECS to the Bankers of the Appellant and demanding money against the said cleared loan account through its Executives and goonda elements, amount to deficiency of services and unfair trade practice or Not?. Our answer to this question is in the affirmative.
10. There being categorical admission on the part of the Appellant that due to inadvertence and human error settlement of account could not be uploaded in their system and hence outstanding in the loan account of the Appellant could not be reversed and that on account of non-reversal of outstanding, the system kept on sending ECS to the Banker of the Appellant clearly establish the negligence on the part of the Respondents employees which tantamount to deficiency in service on the part of the Respondents who are liable to indemnify the Appellant, for mental harassment, even if his allegations regarding visiting of goondas and officials of the Bank are not believed, though we find no reasons to do so, because it is known practice being adopted by the Banks that whenever there are outstanding toward loans, their officers make calls and send their officials for recovery. There can be no exception in this case, when the Respondents admit that their system was wrongly showing outstanding despite the settlement of loan account of the Appellant.
11. In view of our above discussion, we find the impugned order liable to be set-aside. Hence setting aside the impugned order, we allow the appeal, and consequently the complaint by directing the Respondent to pay to the Appellant a sum of Rs. 30,000/- as compensation including the cost within 30 days of the receipt of this order, failing which they shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum on this amount till realization.
12. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.
13. Announced on 6th October 2010.
(JUSTICE BARKAT ALI ZAIDI) PRESIDENT (M.L. SAHNI) MEMBER AV