HDFC BANK Vs. HARI SHANKAR ROY & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed by the petitioner bank against the order of the State Commission West Bengal dated 22.1.2013 in first appeals No.109/2012 and FA/125/2012.

(2.) Briefly put, facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that respondent No.1 Hari Shankar Roy filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum concerned on the allegations that he had booked a car marketed by respondent No.1 Mohan Udyog (opposite party No.1) by making down payment of booking amount of Rs.5100/- on 16.1.2007. The price of the car was Rs.4,63,000/-. Opposite party No.1 dealer had allowed discount on the aforesaid consideration amount. It is the case of the complainant that for making balance payment the complainant took loan from the petitioner bank (opposite party No.2). The opposite party No.2 accordingly paid the aforesaid amount of loan Rs.3,90,000/- directly to the dealer against the price of the car. It is alleged that after the aforesaid payment, an adjustment of discount of Rs.45,000/- remained to be paid against the price of the car. The complainant in order to clear the said dues visited the office of opposite party No.1 dealer but the dealer refused to adjust the payment and denied to deliver the car which has caused pecuniary loss to the complainant. It is further the case of the complainant that he sent legal notices dated 9.3.2007, 8.4.2007 and 17.5.2007 to opposite party No.1 dealer demanding refund of the amount paid by him against the purchase of car which was not delivered. In reply the dealer sent an advocate's notice dated 23.5.2007 from which the complainant came to know that the petitioner bank (opposite party No.2) had cancelled the loan agreement and taken back the money paid, from the dealer. According to the complainant the cancellation of loan by the petitioner bank (opposite party No.2) without prior intimation to the complainant amounts to deficiency in service. Thus, feeling aggrieved from the conduct of the respective opposite parties the complainants raised the consumer dispute.

(3.) The opposite party contested the complaint. Opposite party No.1 in its written version took the plea that it had duly refunded the amount of Rs.3,88,900/- to the opposite party No.2 bank. As such there can be no further demand from the complainant's end regarding the refund of amount deposited for the booked car. Opposite party No.1 dealer further alleged that he is still willing to refund the booking amount of Rs.5100/- since the amount was paid by the complainant to him. According to opposite party No.1, the dispute has crept between the petitioner bank regarding cancellation of loan in which opposite party No.1 has no role to play.