Orissa

Cuttak

CC/232/2023

Gautam Das - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager,HDFC Bank - Opp.Party(s)

B K Sinha & associates

13 May 2024

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

C.C.No.232/2023

 

Gautam Das,

C/o: Gopinath Das,Samanta Sahi,           

Cuttack.

 

          Vrs.

 

1.        The Branch Manager of HDFC Bank,

At:Retail lone service centre Santi Niketan Building,

                 Jholasahi,Cuttack

 

2.        The Managing Director,

HDFC Bank.

 

3.        The Branch Manager,

Punjab National Bank,

Branch Office at Ranihat,Bajrakabati Road,

Cuttack,Pin-753001.

 

4.        The Managing Director,

 Punjab National Bank.                                                       ….Opp. Parties.

 

Present:         Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                      Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    11.07.2023

Date of Order:  13.05.2024

 

For the complainant:          Mr. B.K.Sinha,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps 1 & 2    :           Mr. N.K.Das,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps no.3 & 4:               None.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President

Case of the complainant as made out from his complaint petition in short is that he had purchased a mobile hand set from Reliance Digital on 9.1.2023 for a price of Rs.17,999/.  For purchasing the said mobile hand set, he had obtained loan from O.Ps no.1 & 2 and had agreed to repay the loan in regular EMIs @ Rs.2571/-.  He had instructed to his Punjab National Bank where he has a Savings Bank Account bearing No.048601026915 in the matter.  On 4.2.2023, even though he had a balance of Rs.2682/- in his said Savings Bank Account in the Punjab National Bank and he had to deposit the EMI of Rs.2571/- to HDFC Bank, without doing so, Punjab National Bank had deducted a sum of Rs.295/- from his account for which his balance amount was reduced to Rs.2387/- and he could not deposit the EMI of Rs.2571/- to the HDFC Bank and for the said reason a charge of Rs.531/- was also levied on his account thereby affecting his CIBIL score.  It is for the said reason, the complainant has come up with his case before this Commission seeking direction to the O.Ps no.1 & 2 not to deduct Rs.531/- from his account and also to direct the O.Ps no.3 & 4 to return Rs.295/- as deducted by them from his Savings Bank Account.  He has also prayed for compensation towards his mental agony and sufferings from the O.Ps to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- and for his litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.50,000/- from them.

Together with his complaint petition, the complainant has annexed copies of several documents in order to prove his case.

2.         Out of the four O.Ps as arrayed in this case, having not preferred to contest this case, O.Ps no.3 & 4 have been set exparte vide order dated 3.10.2023.  However, O.Ps no.1 & 2 have contested this case and have filed their joint written version wherein they have admitted that the complainant had purchased a mobile hand set from Reliance Digital on 9.1.2022 for a price of Rs.17,999/- and had obtained loan from them for the said purpose thereby agreeing to repay the said loan @ Rs.2571/- per month.   As regards to the deduction of Rs.295/- from the Savings Bank Account of the complainant which the complainant has with Punjab National Bank, the O.Ps no.1 & 2 have no role to play.  They have also no role to play in the entire alleged transaction of the complainant.  The financed amount as advanced to the complainant was of Rs.17,142/- which was to be repaid in seven number of instalments with effect from 9.1.2023 to 5.7.2023 with a standing instruction to O.P no.3 for auto debit where the complainant has his Savings Bank Account.  The deduction of Rs.531/- was levied due to bouncing of the cheque since because the complainant had no sufficient funds in his account to honour the cheque for the said purpose.  The O.Ps no.1 & 2 through their written version have relied upon the decisions of the Hon’ble  higher courts which are as follows:

(i)         In the case of Rajkumar Devdas Ghayal Vrs. TATA Motors reported in I(2013) CPJ 60 decided by the Hon’ble State Commission,Maharashtra where it has been held that dispute which pertains to account cannot be said to be consumer dispute but is essentially a civil dispute.

(ii)        In the case of Bharti Knitting Company Vs. DHL Worldwide Express Courier (1996) 4 SCC 704, wherein it was held that, when the complainant signs the contract documents, he is bound by its terms and conditions and the onus would be on him to prove the terms and the circumstances, in which he has signed the contract.

(iii)       In the case of Rashpal Singh Bahia & Others Vs. Surinder Kaur and Others 2008(2) Civil Forum cases 778 (P & H) that one who comes to Forum must come with clean hands.  A person whose case is based on falsehood has no right to approach the Forum.

(iv)       In the matter of SGS India Ltd. Vs. Dolphin International Ltd. (Civil Appeal 5759 of 2009) held that “onus of proof of deficiency in service is on the complainant under the Consumer Protection Act”.

Accordingly, basing upon all these decisions, it is urged by the O.Ps no.1 & 2 through their written version that the complainant has suppressed the material facts for which they have prayed for dismissal of the complaint petition with exemplary cost.

Though the O.Ps no.3 & 4 have not contested this case, they have filed their evidence affidavit through one Chandrasekhar Rao, working as their  Branch Manager.   The said Chandrasekhar Rao in his evidence affidavit has stated that the case of the complainant is not maintainable which is liable to be dismissed as he has no cause of action and his cause of action is also barred by limitation.  According to the evidence affidavit of the said Chandrasekhar Rao, the complainant has not approached before this Commission with clean hands and had rather suppressed the material facts.  According to him due to lien mark of Rs.177/- the cheque of Rs.2571/- could not be cleared since the complainant had Rs.2682/- in his Savings Bank Account only.  The said lien mark was of Rs.177/- for the quarter from July,2020 to September,2020 and as such, there is no sufficient balance left to honour the cheque for a sum of Rs.2571/-.  Accordingly, it is prayed by the said Branch Manager,Chandra Sekhar Rao through his evidence affidavit to dismiss the complaint petition as filed by the complainant.

3.         Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and the contents of the written version of the O.Ps no.1 & 2, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a definite conclusion here in this case.

i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps ?

iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him?

Issue no.II.

Out of the three issues, issue no. ii being the pertinent issue here in this case is taken up first for consideration.

After perusing the complaint petition, written version, written notes of submissions as filed from both the sides, evidence affidavit as filed on behalf of the O.Ps no.3 & 4 as well as the copies of documents available in the case record, it is not in dispute that the complainant had purchased a mobile hand set  worth of Rs.17,999/- on 9.1.2023 and for the said purpose he had obtained a loan from O.Ps no.1 & 2.  It is also not in dispute that he had agreed to repay the said loan amount @ Rs.2571/- per month.  It is also not in dispute that the complainant had a Savings Bank Account bearing No.048601026915 with O.P no.3.  On 4.2.23, when a cheque was advanced in order to clear the instalment amount of Rs.2571/- towards the loan of the complainant, the same was dishonoured since because the complainant had only a balance of Rs.2682/- in his Savings Bank Account with Punjab National Bank that day.  The complainant alleges that since because the bank had debited a sum of Rs.295/- from his Savings Bank Account, the cheque could not be honoured due to insufficiency of funds. But it is the contention of the Branch Manager Chandrasekhar Rao through his evidence affidavit filed on behalf of O.Ps no.3 & 4 that the account of the complainant was marked lien for Rs.177/- for the quarter from July,2020 to September,2020.  For the said reason, the cheque of the complainant when presented on 4.2.2023 could not be honoured.  To support this contention, a copy of the Punjab National Bank reflecting lien maintenance account of the complainant Gautam Das has been filed wherein an amount of Rs.177/- is shown to be the new lien amount wherein it is also reflected that the old lien amount was Rs.177/- which was effective from 12.12.2020 and the expiry date was upto 31.12.2099.  In the notes column of the said copy of document, it is reflected that

Sl.No.	City	Bank id	Bank Branch	Cheque Sno.	Cheque Date	Cheque Amount	Unpaid EMI Reason
1	Delhi	Punjab National Bank	Delhi	E456313116002-1	05/02/2023	2571.00	Insufficient funds

 

Be that as it may, in the written notes of submission filed on behalf of O.Ps no.3 & 4 it is mentioned therein  that the account of the complainant was lien marked for Rs.177/- for the quarter July,2020 to September,2020  as because the complainant had not maintained the minimum balance in his account.  Such contention of the O.Ps no.3 & 4 is not adequately proved being supported by any documentary evidence or by filing copy of the account statement so as to apprise this Commission that infact the complainant had not maintained the minimum prescribed balance for the quarter from the month of July,2020 to September,2020.  That apart, it is also not understood as to why such levy of lien charges if marked was not collected or debited from the account of the complainant and what made the O.Ps no.3 &4 wait upto 4.2.23 in order to dishonour the cheque of the complainant.  There is no satisfactory explanation to this extent made by the O.Ps no.3 & 4.  A copy of the account statement as filed by the complainant here in this case vide Annexure-4 is not disputed by O.Ps no.3 & 4.  Thus, when annexure-4 reflects that the complainant had a balance of Rs.2682.11p as on 4.2.23, by not honouring the cheque of the complainant amounting to Rs.2571/- on the said date, the same clearly signifies deficiency in service on the part of the O.P bank.  Accordingly, this issue goes in favour of the complainant.

Issues no.i & iii.

From the discussions as made above, the case of the complainant is definitely maintainable and he is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him from the O.P here in this case.  Hence it is so ordered;

ORDER

The case is decreed on contest against the O.Ps no.1 & 2 and exparte against O.Ps no.3 & 4.  The O.Ps no.3 & 4  are found to be jointly and severally liable here in this case. The said O.Ps are thus  directed not to claim from the complainant  Rs.531/- and return Rs.295/- as debited from his account  with immediate effect.  The said O.Ps are also directed to pay the complainant an amount of Rs.30,000/- towards compensation for his mental agony and harassment as well as a further sum of Rs.20,000/- towards the cost of his litigation.  This order is to be carried out within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Order pronounced in the open court on this the 13^th day of May,2024 under the seal and signature of this Commission.           

                                                                                      

                                                                                      Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                              President

 

                                                                                          Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                      Member