NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Ajit Bharihoke, Presiding Member and Mrs Rekha Gupta, Member
HDFC Bank Ltd. — Petitioner
versus
Kanwal Ohri & Ors. —Respondents
Revision Petition No. 2001 of 2012
(Against the order dated 18.04.2012 in First Appeal no. 53 of 2012 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Union Territory Chandigarh)
Decided on 12.8.2014
Result: Revision Petition allowed.
Rekha Gupta, Member—Revision petition no. 2001 of 2012 has been filed against the judgment and order dated 18.04.2012 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Union Territory, Chandigarh (‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal no. 53 of 2012.
2. The brief facts of the case as per the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3/ complainants are that in June 2010 petitioner no. 1 and 2 (hereinafter it will be referred in short as ‘Bank’) approached the respondents and offered loan against the property. The respondents informed Bank that the respondent have already availed loan against their property, i.e., House no. 379, Sector 7, Panchkula from GE Money Financial Services Ltd., SCO 72-73, 1st Floor, Sector 8 C, Chandigarh, i.e., Loan Account no. HCHE00000664 for a sum of Rs.47,66,000/- @ 13.23% per annum and loan account no. HCHE00000682 for a sum of Rs.15,04,000/- @ 12.56% per annum.
3. The Bank allured the respondents by saying that the Bank will take over the original loan of the respondents from GE Money and issued further loan to the respondents @ 11% per annum. The Bank further stated that the respondents had to pay only 2% towards foreclosure charges over the total amount of loan outstanding with GE Money, as the Bank had tie up with GE Money and thereafter the original title deeds of the respondents deposited with GE Money shall be received by the Bank on behalf of the respondents from GE Money. The respondents believing the version of Bank gave their consent for taking loan from the Bank.
4. After about 15 or 20 days in June 2010, the Bank again approached the respondents and said that the Bank had verified the outstanding amount of the respondents from GE Money and as per the verification the respondents had to pay a lump-sum amount of Rs.61,36,000/-, i.e., (Rs.46,70,000/- & Rs.14,66,000/-) to GE Money including 2% foreclosure charges, to which the respondents agreed and the Bank got signed some blank papers on the pretext that the Bank required the same to receive the original title deeds from GE Money on their behalf.
5. On 17.07.2010 the Bank informed the respondents that on the basis of verification from GE Money it had sanctioned a loan of Rs.88 lakh in favour of the respondents and out of the sanctioned loan the Bank would directly disburse a sum of Rs.61,36,000/- in favour of GE Money towards closure of their loan accounts and the balance amount of Rs.26,64,000/- will be disbursed to the respondents directly. The Bank further took a cheque bearing no. 015350, dated 17.07.2010 drawn at Union Bank of India, Sector 8, Panchkula for a sum of Rs.97,064/- from the respondents towards 1% processing charges, i.e., Rs.88,000/- including service taxes, i.e., Rs.9,064/-. Bank also signed the sanctioned letter for the respondents.
6. On 19.07.2010, Bank got signatures of the respondents over the agreement, and thereafter, on 02.08.2010, the Bank handed over the repayment schedule to the respondents regarding disbursement of Rs.61,36,000/- in favour of GE Money which was applicable with effect from 07.09.2010 and further assured that the loan amount will be disbursed to the respondents and to GE Money on their behalf within a weeks’ time.
7. On 12.08.2010, the Bank informed the respondents that the Bank had sent two pay orders amounting to Rs.46,70,000/- and Rs.14,46,000/- (Total Rs.61,36,000/-) in favour of GE Money but GE Money refused to accept the said amount from the Bank on the pretext that now the GE Money is demanding 4% foreclosure charges over the due amount from Bank. The respondents asked the Bank that if GE Money refused to accept Rs.61,36,000/- from the Bank then how had the Bank sanctioned the loan of Rs.88 lakhs in favour of the respondents, meaning thereby the Bank had negligently/ wrongly sanctioned loan of Rs.88 lakhs in favour of the respondents, i.e., without proper verification from GE Money, to which the Bank had no answer. The respondents requested the Bank to cancel the loan agreement and return
SupremeToday
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.