HDFC BANK LIMITED Vs. SUJATHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed under Sec. 58 (1) (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (in short, 'the Act') challenging the impugned order dtd. 8/7/2021 passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru (in short, 'the State Commission') in First Appeal no. 348 of 2019.

(2.) The brief facts of the case as narrated by the petitioner are that the respondent's late husband R Venkataramana working with M/s Reliance Home Finance Pvt. Ltd., had availed a personal loan of Rs.4,79,000.00 from the petitioner, HDFC Bank, on 28/6/2013. The respondent's late husband had agreed to pay the loan in 48 monthly instalments and had executed a loan agreement on 28/6/2013. The respondent was holding a savings bank (SB) account with the petitioner Bank and the loan amount was credited in full to his SB account. The respondent was also maintaining a salary account with the petitioner bank and EMI of the loan was debited from this salary account. The petitioner Bank marked 'Hold Funds' on 3/9/2016 on the SB account and credited the available amount in the SB account to the loan account, exercising its rights to lien. The husband of the respondent expired due to ill health on 9/7/2016. On 10/8/2016 the respondent received a mail from the employer of her late husband that a full and final settlement amount of Rs.1,46,481.22 has been credited to the petitioner's bank. She informed the petitioner Bank about the untimely death of her husband and requested the Bank to release the balance amount held in the husband's account as the respondent was the nominee to that account. The petitioner bank informed the respondent that the account had been put on 'Hold Fund". The respondent has also stated that the respondent was not aware of any loan availed by her late husband. Petitioner avers that the amount credited in the account of the deceased customer cannot be termed as retirement benefits. Petitioner contends that the fora below have wrongly held the petitioner guilty of deficiency in service.

(3.) As there was no positive response from the petitioner Bank, the respondent approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bangalore (Urban) (in short, 'the District Forum') by way of a consumer complaint, bearing no. 1365 of 2016. Vide order dtd. 2/1/2017, the District Forum after hearing the parties allowed the complaint and directed as under: