Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/350/2022

M.Bhavani W/o Late R. Monoharan No.2A/2 LGGS Nagar Thiruvannamali Town - Complainant(s)

Versus

Adhitya Puri, Managing Director HDFC Bank Ltd HDFC Bank House Mimbai 400 013 - Opp.Party(s)

B.Jawahar

28 Oct 2022

ORDER

IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

 

                   BEFORE :        Hon’ble Justice R. SUBBIAH                    PRESIDENT

                                  Thiru R VENKATESAPERUMAL               MEMBER                        

                      

F.A.NO.350/2022

(Against order in CC.NO.1/2019 on the file of the DCDRC, Thiruvannamalai)

 

DATED THIS THE 28^th DAY OF OCTOBER 2022

 

1.       M. Bhavani

          W/o. Late R.Manokaran

 

2.       Prasanna

          S/o. Late R.Manokaran

 

3.       Priyadharshini

          D/o. Late R.Manokaran

 

4.       Gayathri

          D/o. Late R. Manokaran

 

All are residing at                                                                  M/s.B. Jawahar

No.2A/2, LGGS Nagar                                                                Counsel for

Thiruvannamalai Town                                                Appellants / Complainants

 

 

                                                         Vs.

1.     Aditya Puri

        Managing Director

        HDFC Bank Ltd., HDFC Bank House

        1^st Floor, C.S.No.6/242

        Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel

        Mumbai – 400 013

 

2.     The Regional Officer

        HDFC Bank

        No.96, Prince Keceshal Towers

        Ground Floor (Near LIC Building)

        Anna Salai, Mount Road

        Chennai – 600 002

 

3.     The Branch Manager

        HDFC Bank                                                            M/s. Pass Associates

        No.86/65, Sannathi Street                                             Counsel for

        Tiruvannamalai – 606 601                           Respondents /1 to3 Opposite parties

 

          The Appellants as complainants filed a complaint before the District Commission against the opposite parties praying for certain direction. The District Commission had dismissed the complaint for default. Against the said exparte order, this appeal is preferred by the complainant praying to set aside the order of the District Commission dt.14.6.2022 in CC. No.1/2019.

 

          This petition is coming before us for hearing finally today.  Upon hearing the arguments of the counsel appearing on bothside, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Commission, this commission made the following order in the open court:

 

JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH ,  PRESIDENT  (Open court)

 

1.       The complainant before the District Commission is the appellant herein. 

 

2.       The complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission, against the opposite parties by alleging deficiency in service in deducting amounts from the account of the deceased complainant’s father, eventhough they have submitted all the required documents viz. death certificate, legal heir certificate etc.

           Inspite of repeated requests and after causing legal notice also, the opposite parties have deducted further sum of Rs.980/- from the SB account of the deceased father of the complainants.  The respondents have not come forward to close the account, which stands in the name of the deceased Manokaran, instead continuously deducting money from the said account, and also sent a letter dt.20.11.2017 in the subject as ‘Alert’ stating that there was no transaction in the account of the deceased from 20.9.2017.  Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the appellant/ complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission praying for compensation.

 

3.       Though the complainant appeared through his counsel before the District Commission, since remained absent continuously, the complaint was dismissed for default for non appearance of the complaint.  Hence the complainant is before us now, as appellant, praying to set aside the order passed by the District Commission, in dismissing the complaint for default.   The appellants/ complainants would further submit that their absence before the District Commission was neither willful nor wanton and prayed for an opportunity to contest the matter on merit by remanding the matter for fresh disposal.

 

4.       We have heard the learned counsel appearing on eitherside.  Considering the subject matter of the complaint, since the complaint was filed claiming the amount from the account of the deceased father of the complainants, we are of the considered opinion that a chance may be given to the appellants/ complainants to agitate their right on merit.  Though the attitude of the complainants exhibits lethargic behavior in not appearing before the District Commission, in the interest of justice, we are inclined to allow this appeal on imposing certain cost, and by order dt.12.10.2022, we have directed the appellants/ complainants to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- towards cost to the Legal Aid Account of the State Commission on or before 27.10.2022.   Since the cost is paid and the conditional order has been complied with, this appeal is allowed. 

 

5.       In the result, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the order of the District Commission, Thiruvannamalai in C.C.No.1/2019 dt.14.6.2022, and the complaint is ordered to be restored to the file of District Commission, Thiruvannamalai, for fresh disposal according to law on merit.

 The District Commission, Thiruvannamalai shall issue notice to the parties for their appearance. The District Commission, Thiruvannamalai is directed to dispose of the complaint, as expeditiously as possible, according to law on merit.   

 

 

 

 

R VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                            R. SUBBIAH

                        MEMBER                                                                  PRESIDENT