HDFC BANK LTD vs TARA SINGH

COUNSEL for the petitioner heard. Respondents/complainants have not turned up, despite service. Respondent No.1 had received the litigation charges, but has not turned up. The respondents are proceeded against ex -parte.

SH . Tara Singh, the complainant was the owner of one Tralla. He sold the same to one Shri Sakartar Singh, for a sum of Rs. 7,82,500/ -. Tara Singh received a sum of Rs. 2,60,426/ - as earnest money. The said Tralla was financed by HDFC Bank, OP1, for a sum of Rs. 2,42,074/ -. Tara Singh and Sakartar Singh agreed that a sum of Rs. 2,80,000/ - would be paid by Sakartar Singh to the complainant upto 20.04.2009 and Rs. 2,42,074/ - would be paid to HDFC Bank and after that NOC and Form No.35 from HDFC Bank would be issued to Sakartar Singh.

IT is alleged that Sakartar Singh in connivance with OPs 1 and 2, got issued NOC and Form No.35. On 30.03.2009, when the complainant pressurized for NOC and Form No.35, he was informed by Manager, HDFC Bank, OP2 that they had already issued the documents through OP3. It is mentioned that OPs 2, 3 and 4 are all the functionaries of HDFC Bank. Sh. Sandeep Singuria, employee of HDFC - OP - 4 identified the person as Tara Singh/complainant, who was, in fact, Sakartar Singh. Sakartar Singh in guise of and in personification of Tara Singh/ complainant, got those documents, including NOC. Subsequently, duplicate NOC and Form No.35 were issued in favour of the complainant but before that Sakartar Singh got his name entered in the RC without paying the remaining amount to the complainant. The OPs explained that as a matter of fact, the complainant had entered into an agreement with OPs in which the vehicle was under Hypothecation with the OPs. The complainant was the Borrower. He had agreed to abide by the agreement clause 9(iv) that he will not sell this vehicle without the consent of the Bank and he himself had violated these conditions. It is claimed that NOC, as a matter of fact, was issued to complainant, Tara Singh and not to Sakartar Singh. The OPs also sent a letter to the DTO not to transfer the vehicle as it is hypothecated with the OPs.

FROM the order of the State Commission, it is clear that the Registration Certificate from the competent authority, issued on 22.12.2009, still stands in the name of Tara Singh, the complainant. However, the evidence is clear that OPs, while working in cahoots with Sakartar Singh, had issued NOC and Form No.35 to DTO, Sriganganagar for the purpose of transfer of the vehicle. The said NOC was sent without satisfaction of loan in the sum of Rs. 2,42,047/ -. The OPs issued a letter to DTO Sriganganagar, marked as Ex. C -5, vide which, it had been mentioned that they had issued NOC in the name of Tara Singh on 06.05.2009 and it was requested to cancel the hypothecation of the said vehicle. However, subsequently, the OPs wrote another letter, marked as Ex. C -7, to RTO/Insurance Company that loan agreement entered into between them and Tara Singh had been terminated and they were requested to remove the hypothecation of the Bank.

HOWEVER , the bank woke up to the said deficiency later on. Thereafter, the OPs issued another letter marked Ex. R -2, to DTO, Sriganganagar to hold the cancellation of the hypothecation of the above said vehicle, until the above said information is received from the Bank, which also mentioned that there was outstanding amount against the above said vehicle. The Bank also did not produce any statement of accounts.

IT is clear that the OPs made a vain attempt to transfer the registration in favour of Sakartar Singh on the identification of OP4, who stated that Sakartar Singh was the complainant/Tara Singh.

THE District Forum awarded a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/ - along with interest @ 12% p.a. The State Commission while partly allowing the appeal filed by HDFC held that since the vehicle has not yet been transferred, therefore, the Bank is liable to pay Rs. 1,00,000/ - along with interest @ 12% p.a., from the date of decision of the complaint, till its realization. The State Commission had its heart in the right place. The above said actions on part of the Bank caused harassment, mental agony, anger, sadness, frustration and anguish to the complainant/ Tara Singh. It is due to the interference of a vigilant person that the above said fraud could be detected.

THE learned counsel for the petitioner tried to mislead this Commission by arguing that Sakartar Singh never took loan from them and he was a stranger. However, he could not give any explanation as to why he was wrongly identified by OP4. The Bank has not come to the Commission, with clean hands. They are trying to suppress the material facts. The order passed by the State Commission cannot be faulted.

THE revision petition is, therefore, dismissed with further costs of Rs. 25,000/ -, which be paid to the complainant/Tara Singh, along with Rs. 1,00,000/ -, within 90 days'' from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The Bank is at liberty to recover the money entirely from OP4. If the said amount is not paid within 90 days'', the interest shall stand increased to 18% p.a., till realization.