Back
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:
FA No.255 of 2020
“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
FA No.255 of 2020
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 sai
