H. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SHIMLA First Appeal No. : 140/2022 Date of Presentation :02.11.2022 Order reserved on :17.11.2023 Date of Order :13.12.2023 _____

1. HDFC Bank Ltd., J-2/4 B.K. Dutta Market, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi-110027, New Delhi through its Manager.

2. HDFC Bank Ltd., 2^nd Floor, Zenith House, Maha Laxmi Mumbai-400034 through its Manager.

3. HDFC Bank Ltd., Retail Loan Service Centre 363/3, Centre Point, Civil Lines, Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P.

through its Manager.

… Appellants/Opposite parties Versus Rohit Katoch son of Sh. Kanchan Katoch, R/O Vill. Upper Sudher, P.O. and Tehsil Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P.

……Respondent/complainant Coram Hon’ble Justice Inder Singh Mehta, President Hon’ble Mr.R.K. Verma, Member Whether approved for reporting?¹ Yes.

For the Appellant: Mr.Sanjay Sharma, Advocate.

For the Respondent: None.

Per Mr.R.K.Verma, Member.

O R D E R

Instant appeal is arising out of the order dated

20.09.2022 passed by Learned District Consumer Commission,

1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order?

Kangra at Dharamshala, in Consumer Complaint No.149/2019 titled Rohit Katoch vs. HDFC Bank & Ors.

Brief facts of Case

2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant availed loan facility from the opposite party No.1/Bank and loan was to be repaid within three years. Complainant/respondent was regularly paying the EMI. In the month of May 2015, the opposite party No.1/Bank informed the complainant that Rs.6,000/- are outstanding against the loan and the complainant paid the same and received the SMS that complainant has no dues. Thereafter, in December 2015 opposite party sent an agreement by post to settle the loan matter amicably and complainant was asked to pay Rs.12,000/- The complainant paid the same and opposite party issued Loan Closure letter to the complainant and the loan stands closed on 19.12.2025. In the month of March 2019 complainant approached Syndicate Bank and UCO Bank for availing industry loan but CIBIL score is showing outstanding of Rs.25,000/- against the opposite parties. The complainant approached the officials of the opposite party for redressal of his grievance and also sent emails, but in vain. Hence, the present complaint.

3. The opposite parties/Bank contested and resisted the claim of the complainant by filing reply and stated that eight cheques of the complainant got bounced from May, 2015 to December, 2015. The opposite parties/bank intimated the complainant about the default. At the request of the complainant, one time settlement was made and loan amount was settled for a sum of Rs.12,000/- and balance amount was waived off. A prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made.

4. Complainant filed rejoinder in which he denied the averments made in the reply and reaffirmed and reasserted the averments as those made in the complaint.

5. Thereafter, the parties adduced evidence in support of their respective pleadings.

6. After hearing the parties, learned District Commission partly allowed the complaint against the opposite parties/appellants.

7. Feeling aggrieved by the order of learned District Commission, the appellants/opposite parties preferred the instant appeal before this Commission.

8. We have heard learned counsel of the appellants/opposite parties and perused the written submissions filed on behalf of the respondent and have also gone through the record carefully.

9. Learned counsel of the appellants’ bank has submitted that the appellants’ bank had taken various preliminary objections against the maintainability of the complaint in their reply on which no findings was given by the learned District Commission below. This has caused serious prejudice to the appellant bank. He has further submitted that the appellants’ bank had closed the loan account after the loan case was settled and immediately updated their record and showed the overdue amount as zero. The appellants’ bank has nothing to do with the updating of the CIBIL s