ADDITIONAL BENCH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.

First Appeal No. 255 of 2020 Date of institution : 10.09.2020 Reserved on : 09.03.2022 Date of decision : 21.03.2022 HDFC Bank Ltd., Branch at Fazilka through its authorized Representative Mr. Yatin Khanduja.

…..Appellant/Opposite Party Versus Sukhdev Singh aged 42 years son of Sh. Nishan Singh resident of village Baken Wala, Tehsil and District Fazilka.

First Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the order dated 12.03.2020 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (now ‘Commission’), Ferozepur.

Quorum:-

Mr. Rajinder Kumar Goyal, Presiding Member Mrs. Kiran Sibal, Member Argued by:-

For the appellant : Sh. B.D.Jindal, Advocate For respondent : Exparte KIRAN SIBAL, MEMBER The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant/opposite party against the impugned order dated 12.03.2020 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ferozepur (in short, now “the District Commission”), whereby the complaint filed by complainant against opposite party (in short ‘OP’), under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, was allowed and the following relief has been granted:

“10. In view of evidence produced by respective parties and above discussion, this Forum is of considered opinion that OP is not entitled to retain the NOC and other documents, which was taken by the Opposite party at the time of sanction of loan with them in security of loan. Hence, present complaint in hand is hereby allowed. The OP Bank is directed to return documents and blank cheques, received from the complainant. The OP is also directed to issue No Objection Certificate to the complainant and also issue the necessary documents for removal of hypothecation from the registration certificate of the vehicle of the complainant”.

2. It would be apposite to mention that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as have been arrayed before the District Commission.

3. Brief facts for the disposal of the appeal are that the complainant had obtained a vehicle loan from the OP, vide loan account No.31654213, for his vehicle i.e. ‘Mahindra Thar’ bearing Registration No.PB-22-M-1974. The OP had issued a notice dated 22.12.2018 regarding one time settlement of the said vehicle loan and for settlement, the complainant was to pay Rs.1,10,100/- by 31.12.2018 as agreed date of payment. The complainant accepted the settlement offer and paid said amount on 28.12.2018 as full and final payment. After payment of the amount, he requested to the OP to give clearance certificate/No due certificate and also to hand over the original documents along with blank signed cheques, which were obtained by the OP as security at the time of sanctioning the said loan. But the OP put off the matter on one pretext or the other and did not hand over the said documents to the complainant. The complainant also served a legal notice but all in vain. Alleging deficiency in service, the complainant filed the complaint before the District Commission and sought return of documents, blank signed cheques, NOC and to delete the hypothecation entry along with compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- as well as Rs.11,000/- for litigation expenses.

4. The complaint was contested by the OP and filed written reply before the District Commission. In reply to complaint, OP raised preliminary objection that the complainant had concealed the material facts and had not come with clean hands. On merits, OP stated that the complainant had obtained two loans from it i.e. one vehicle loan of Rs.4,16,438/- vide loan account No.31654213 under UCIC No.51594532 and second KGC term loan of Rs.4,80,000/- vide loan account No.80709509 under UCIC No.51594532 and he was defaulter in both the said loans. The bank officials had requested many times to the complainant to repay the loan amount but he failed to do so. Ultimately, the OP offered the complainant to settle the vehicle loan by paying one time settle