Details		DD MM YYYY
Date of Judgment	10	08	2023
Date of filing	10	03	2014
Duration	-	05	09

IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION STATE OF GUJARAT COURT NO.4 Appeal no. 179 of 2015 APPLICANT: [1]. Shivkumar Baccha Singh Address: Block No. 569, Nr. Anandnagar Shaktinath Mandir, Bharuch VS RESPONDENT: [1]. The Manager Address: HDFC Bank, Shaswat Complex, Dahej Bypass Road, Nr. Over Bridge, Bharuch [2]. The Manager Address: HDFC Bank, Trade Center Race Course, Vadodara-390007 [3]. The Manager Address: HDFC Bank, Roman House, H.T. Parekh Marg, 169 Backbay Reclamation, Mumbai-400020 CORUM: Mr. R.N. Mehta, Presiding Member Ms. P. R. Shah, Member Appearance: Mr. J.H. Singh Advocate for Applicant Mr. R.J. Gogda & Associates Advocate for the Respondent By Mr. R.N. Mehta, Presiding Member, Dt.10/08/2023 [1]. When the matter was called out, learned advocate Mr. J.H. Singh is present for the appellant. None is present for the respondent.

The appeal is of 2015.

[2]. The appellant was aggrieved by the order passed by the District Commission Bharuch, order dated 03/06/2013 in Complaint No. 238 of 2008. Mr. Singh has submitted that his client is aggrieved with the bank for supplying his documents to third party without any information to him, which has caused loss to the complainant. It is the case of the complainant before the District Commission that he had availed financial facility with HDFC. The loan was repaid on 28/03/2008 and thereafter, when he inquired for the documents which he had submitted to avail the loan, he was informed that documents have been delivered to Mr. P.R. Chaudhari since letter of authority issued by complainant was produced. The complainant has thereafter, claimed compensation from the respondent HDFC.

[3]. It appears from the record that on issuance of notice, the respondent filed reply containing therein that the documents were handed over to Mr. P.R. Chaudhri to whom the complainant had issued letter of authority. Thus, the basic issue revolving around handing over of the documents to the third party. According to the complainant, he has never issued any such authority and the signature on the authority letter is not of the complainant. Whereas, it is stated by the respondent that since there was letter of authority issued by the complainant, the documents were handed over to Mr. P.R. Chaudhri.

[4]. We have seen the record. It appears from the record that there is some dispute between Mr. P.R. Chaudhri and complainant regarding the premises pertaining to which the documents were handed over to opponent herein. It is not in dispute that the loan was repaid. Ordinarily, it is expected from the respondent that the documents ought to have been returned to the complainant on payment of the entire loan amount. However, it is say of the opponent that since Mr. P.R. Chaudhri was having authority letter issued by the complainant, it has in good faith, handed over to documents to Mr. P.R. Chaudhri. It also appears from the record that Mr. P.R. Chaudhri has also filed Regular Civil Suit No. 240 of 2008 on 21/04/2008 against the present complainant. Although, the said suit was for declaratory relief as the complainant has entertained to contract with some Mr. Kunvarjibhai Ratnajibhai Vasava for the same premises. We have been informed by the Mr. Singh that the said suit decided in favor of the plaintiff and documents/agreement entered in to between the complainant and the Mr. Kunvarjibhai was declared null and void. Mr. Singh also submitted that the authority letter on which the opponent has relied upon the signatures of the complainant is not tallying. The another submissions of Mr. Singh is the complainant had suffered loss because the documents were not handed over to him for which the Consumer Forum have jurisdiction but the District Forum has rejected the complaint with the liberty to file suit for the same issue if so desire and can dispute therein that the authority letter is not signed by t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document