Mr. Shaunak H. Sayta Vs. Hdfc Bank Ltd., Lower Parel, Mumbai - Court Judgment

Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member

1. This appeal arises out of order/award dated 14/7/2008 passed in consumer complaint no.4/2007 Mr.Shaunak H. Sayta v/s. HDFC Bank Ltd. by Central Mumbai District Consumer Forum. Complaint stood dismissed and feeling aggrieved thereby, original complainant has filed this appeal.

2. Appellant/complainant had taken a loan of Rs.2 lakhs in the month of September 2005 from respondent/original opponent bank (herein after referred as “Bank” for brevity). Appellant made an application for ‘top up loan, which was sanctioned to him in the month of July 2006. Accordingly, Rs.1,60,524/- from the sanctioned top up loan were adjusted towards foreclosure/satisfaction of the first loan and balance of Rs.38,486/- were remitted to the complainant. Said remittance was refused by the complainant. Complainant informed bank that he did not agree with the conditions of top up loan. A Correspondence followed. Bank informed as per its letter dated 23/11/2006 to the complainant that since the complainant refused to accept the disbursement cheque of top up loan of Rs.38,486/-, supra, it has been agreed to reinstate the original loan and the process of reinstatement of the original loan was already explained to the complainant and the matter is held up due to refusal on the part of complainant to provide fresh set of documents/repayment instructions and insistence on part of the complainant to compensate him by the bank. The complainant was advised to contact the bank i.e. official Mr.Prashant Aldangadi of Retail Loans division. Thereafter complainant noticed that EMI towards the installment was wrongly debited in his account and thereafter he filed consumer complaint inter-alia praying following reliefs:-

“A) pray to this honourable court, that I should be given compensation for the loss of goodwill that I have suffered, with my bankers and because of the fact that such matters are reported to the Credit Information Bureau (India) Limited. I have been denied loans from several other banks, I want to also get back the installment that they have wrongly debited in my account, along with interest.

Quantum on compensation claimed for various reasons

i) Drafting fees and legal costs – Rs.1,75,000/- (One lakh seventy five thousand)

ii) Loss of opportunity, because I have been denied various other credit facilities from other banks due to this intentional fraud on part of the bank –Rs.10,00,000/- (Ten lakhs only)

iii) Loss of goodwill – Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only)

iv) Return of installment of loan and bank charges and interest – Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand).

Total compensation claimed –Rs.16,85,000/- (Sixteen lakhs eighty five thousand only).

B) would also like to pray to this honourable court that I want an affidavit from HDFC stating that they do not have any claim on this loan without any prejudice to me and that they relieve me of the burden of paying any installment of this loan, with a copy of this letter marked to the Credit Information Bureau (India) Limited.

C) Any other relief that your honour may deem fit and proper.”

3. Bank appeared and resisted the claim as per their written statement and denied the claim in toto. It is submitted on behalf of the bank that the second loan was disbursed as per the application of the complainant, but subsequently after the disbursement of the amount of Top up loan as per the agreed terms and conditions, the complainant returned the cheque of disbursement. There is no deficiency of service on their part and complaint deserves to be dismissed. Forum below upholding the contention of the bank dismissed the complaint.

4. We heard appellant/original complainant- Mr.Shaunak H.Sayta in person and Mr.Chaitanya Jadhav-Advocate I/b Mahesh Menon and Co. for respondent bank. Perused the record.

5. There is delay of 37 days in filing the appeal and, therefore, misc.application bearing M.A.no.1804/2008 is filed to condone the same. Reason given by the appellant is that he was suffering from stomach disorder for a prolonged period of time and he was also required to travel to Sri Lanka for personal commitments and therefore, delay of 37 days is caused. Reason of illness, which is not supported by any documents is contradicted by the fact that the appellant was active since he was travelling abroad. Therefore these two circumstances do not match with each other and contradicts each other. Reason for delay though of short period of 37 days remains unexplained satisfactorily, the misc.application for condonation of delay deserves to be dismissed.

6. By way of abundant precaution, we also considered the claim of the appellant on merit. Considering the application made by the complainant himself for ‘top up loan, the fact that the bank accepted the proposal as per the said application and informed the complainant about sanction of the top up loan and further acted upon it by foreclosing first loan account and remitted the balance amount of the top up loan to the complainant. However, since the complainant did not retain the cheque of disbursement of the amount of second loan and returned it to the bank and thereafter when the complainant further expressed to not stand by the top up loan, the bank informed him about the conditions of reverting back to the first loan by a letter to which a reference is made earlier while recounting the facts. Conditions of reverting back to the first loan were also not satisfied by the complainant. In those circumstances, it cannot be said that the bank was wrong, particularly, deficient in service when it deducted EMI of Rs.7000/- and same odd amount to which a grievance is made in the consumer complaint. Issues related to cancellation of the top up loan agreement and reverting back to the original loan, is a matter in dispute to which the Consumer Fora cannot go. Certainly, therefore, and in the background of the undisputed facts, it can be seen that there is hardly anything to hold that there is any deficiency in service on the part of the bank within the meaning of section 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Hereinafter referred as “Act” for brevity). Reliefs claimed on the basis of alleged deficiency in service would also not fall within the ambit of section 14 of the Act. Compensation for loss of goodwill, etc. particularly will not within the scope of section 14 of the Act.

For the reasons stated above, we find no fault with the impugned order/award. Thus finding the appeal devoid of any substance, we pass the following order;-

Order:

i) Misc. application no.1804/2008 for condonation of delay stands dismissed with cost of Rs.1000/-.

ii) Appeal stands dismissed.

iii) Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.