Decided on November 27,2020

Omesh Kaplish Appellant
HDFC BANK Respondents


- (1.) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Omesh Kaplish against the order dated 15.09.2014 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, (in short 'the State Commission') passed in First Appeal no.289 of 2012.
(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was having a credit card bearing no.4346781003145330 issued by the respondent bank on 29.01.2008 and the limit of the credit card was Rs.1,75,000/-. The complainant was regularly using the credit card and was repaying the outstanding amount, however, the outstanding amount reached to a level of Rs.1,22,113/- on 09.02.2009. The bank made a settlement with the complainant on 16.02.2009 and the settled amount was Rs.90,000/- which was to be paid in four equal instalments of Rs.22,500/- starting from the same month. The first instalment of Rs.22,500/- was paid on 16.02.2009 itself. The instalments were to be paid before 25th of each month, however, the complainant paid only Rs.12,000/- before 25th March and remaining Rs.10,000/- was paid in first week of April. The payment of other instalments was also delayed and the payment was made in bits and pieces on different dates. In the complaint, the complainant has alleged that he has paid Rs.98,310/- including the interest.
(3.) The complainant also took a loan against gold jewellery from the respondent bank for Rs.1,53,000/- vide loan sanction letter dated 03.12.2010. This loan was for 180 days @ 12.50% p.a. interest. The complainant deposited Rs.1,50,000/- on 25.03.2011 in his saving bank account with the bank. It has been alleged by the complainant that this amount was deposited as repayment against the gold loan. The bank recovered Rs.1,25,783/- from this amount on 09.04.2011 as outstanding dues against the credit card. The bank has not thus returned the gold jewellery of the complainant. Aggrieved by this action of the bank, the complainant filed a consumer complaint bearing no.180 of 2011 before the District Forum, Fatehgarh Sahib. The complaint was resisted by the opposite party bank on the ground that as per settlement agreement between the complainant and the bank, if the instalments for payment of the settled amount were not paid by the complainant in the stipulated time, the settlement would become null and void and therefore, interest and penalty piled up in the credit card account and the total outstanding became about Rs.1,28,000/- and the bank under the general lien recovered the amount of Rs.1,25,783/- from the account of the complainant. The District Forum, however, allowed the complaint and passed the following order on 09.12.2011:- "Hence we accept this complaint and order the opposite parties to give back the gold jewellery on which the complainant had taken the loan of Rs.1,50,000/- while the complainant has already deposited Rs.1,50,000/- on 25.3.2011 and he has not withdrawn the amount from his saving account after that. Therefore to withdraw an amount of Rs.1,25,783/- from the A/c of the complainant and to issue notice to sell the jewellery of the complainant is a deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence we accept this complaint and order the opposite parties to release the jewellery pledged by the complainant which is to be released on 25.3.2011 and to give Rs.10,000 as mental tension & harassment and also give Rs.5000/- as litigation charges within one month of receiving this order.";

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.