National consumer disputes redressalcommission new delhi


REVISION PETITION NO.  633 OF 2014



Download 3.18 Mb.
Page14/66
Date09.11.2016
Size3.18 Mb.
1   ...   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   ...   66

 

         

REVISION PETITION NO.  633 OF 2014

(From order dated 30.09.2013  First Appeal No. FA-766/09 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal  Commission, Delhi)


 

Shri S.S. Bhatia, S/o. Lt. Sh.Sardar Jot Singh R/o. C-402, Manglik Apartments Plot No.25, Sector-6, Dwarka, New Delhi

                  … Petitioner

 Versus


HDFC Bank Ltd. (Collections) 9th Floor, Ansal Classique Tower Plot No.1, J Block, New Community Centre Rajouri Garden, New Delhi

                                         … Respondent

 BEFORE:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER


          HON’BLE DR. S. M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER 

For the Petitioner                   :  In person 


PRONOUNCED ON _4th JULY, 2014 

O R D E R 

JUSTICE J.M. MALIK

1.      In this revision petition, the civil court has already adjudicated the dispute between the parties.  We are of the considered view that the view taken by thefora below  cannot be faulted.  They gave a short shrift to the submissions made by the complainant/revisionist and dismissed his complaint. 

 2.      The facts of  this case are these. Sh. S.S.Bhatia, the complainant  purchased an  Indica  Car  with commercial  number  from ICICI Bank in July, 2003. The said vehicle was refinanced by HDFC Bank  by  transferring the balance amount  with ICICI through the loan sanctioned  by  HDFC  Bank in the year 2004. The vehicle was refinanced by HDFC Bank in December, 2005.  The petitioner was approached  by one, Ms. Priya, a DSA of HDFC Bank in March, 2006.  She informed that the existing loan amount of Rs.1,56,000/- against the said vehicle could be enhanced to Rs. 1,95,000/- without any formalities or other charges like  pre-closure charges and  that difference in loan amount would be increased with increase of percentage of  loan  amount from 75% to 95% of the estimated value of the vehicle.  He was further informed that the loan amount sanctioned  was  Rs.1,95,000/-  and after adjusting the balance amount of Rs.1,33,192.48  in  the  existing loan account No.2046421,  the amount in difference would be credited in his bank account with Punjab National Bank, New Delhi.  However, the amount  credited in his account was Rs. 46,800/-.

 3.      The complainant  took up  the matter with Ms.Priya and Customer Care Centre of HDFC Bank for the residue amount of Rs.13,000/-. Ultimately, a credit of Rs.7,005/- was given in his bank account on 19.06.2006 and the remaining amount of Rs.6,000/- (approx.) was not paid to the complainant.  The first EMI was paid.

 4.      On the  contrary, the respondent, HDFC Bank started threatening calls through their collection people for seizure of the vehicle for non-payment of EMIs. Consequently, the vehicle was surrendered on 16.09.2006 to HDFC  Bank against their demand notice dated 04.09.2006   for  the same.  Correspondence to this extent has  been  placed on record.  Ultimately, the vehicle was sold for a sum of Rs.41,000/-, i.e., on a very low price.  The vehicle was worth more than Rs.2,00,000/-.  The petitioner has  given offer for Rs.1,80,000/-.   The petitioner  ultimately  filed  a complaint before the District Forum on 19.02.2007, with the following prayer :-

HDFC owe me Rs.20,000/- besides Rs.50,000/- as penalties for agony and torture caused to me as per decision of the State Consumer Commission in similar circumstances as appeared in newspaper on 10.01.2007. Copy of the newspaper cutting of 10.01.2007 from The Times of India is enclosed.


I pray for appropriate orders in this regard so that I get compensated for the loss and HDFC gets appropriate warning to desist from such wrong practices”.

 

5.      This is an indisputable fact that the Civil Court has decided this matter pending between the parties. 



 6.      The District Forum dismissed the complaint holding :-

“…. Complainant may seek appropriate remedy by placing the relevant material on record before the Civil Court where the case for recovery of loan is admittedly pending trial against him.  With these observations, the present complaint stands disposed of.  Parties are left to bear their own costs”.

 7.      The State Commission  dismissed the appeal on the ground holding as follows, at paras 9 and 12 of its judgment :

9.  At the very outset, it is very important to note that  Civil Suit No.467/09/07 titled as HDFC Bank Ltd. Vs. S.S.Bhatia was decided and a certified copy of the judgment and decree dated 14.11.2011 along with decree sheet in aforesaid civil suit passed by CCJ-cum-ARC (West), Tis Hazari Court, has been filed by the HDFC Bank, Respondent. It has not been disputed by the appellant/ petitioner S.S.Bhatia that he has filed First Appeal No.766 of 2009 – S.S. Bhatia Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd., against judgment and decree dated 14.11.2011.

 

12. Since the Civil Court has also adjudicated upon the issue and has passed a decree in favour  of  the  Bank, which is under challenge by the appellant/complainant in appeal, it would not only be just and proper but also appropriate that the parties seek their legal remedies available  to them in Civil Court only.  Multiplicity of the proceedings should be discouraged.  The parallel proceedings at two different courts would not serve  the  cause  of  justice”.

 

8.      We have perused the judgment of the civil court which has been placed on record. All the issues involved herein were discussed and decided finally, in this judgment. This Commission cannot pass a different judgment. The petitioner submitted that this judgment was obtained after applying influence. He could not produce any evidence to this effect.  He has  filed  an  appeal  and the civil court is already seized of the matter.   Multiplicity  of decisions on the same issue are prohibited under  the law. The revision petition is meritless  and,  therefore,  the  same is hereby dismissed.  No order as to costs.



 

(J. M. MALIK, J)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

(DR. S. M. KANTIKAR)



MEMBER

 

dd/


NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI




Share with your friends:
1   ...   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   ...   66


The database is protected by copyright ©hestories.info 2019
send message

    Main page