Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/1041/2019

Sh. Arvind Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC Bank Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

12 Jan 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	1041/2019
Date of Institution	:	15.10.2019
Date of Decision	:	12.01.2024

 

                     

            

 

Arvind Kumar s/o Sh.Jagdish Yadav r/o H.No.1506, Sector 11-D, Chandigarh.

                 ...  Complainant.

Versus

 

1.  HDFC Bank Ltd., SCO No.145-146, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh -160017 through its Branch Manager.

 

2.  Kapur Service Station (Petrol Pump), Sector 21, Chandigarh

…. Opposite Parties

BEFORE:
	SHRI AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU,	PRESIDENT
	SHRI B.M.SHARMA	MEMBER
Present:-
	Sh.Atul Arya, Counsel for complainant along with complainant Sh.Bhawandeep Jindal, Adv. Proxy for Sh.H.S.Kathpal, Counsel for OP No.1 Proxy Counsel for OP No.2.

   

ORDER BY AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU, M.A.(Eng.),LLM,PRESIDENT

1.     The complainant has filed the present complaint pleading therein that he is having Saving cum Salary Account No. 11091050020539 with OP No.1 and took a Credit Card bearing No.4893772416210355 from OP No.1 which is valid from March, 2019 to March, 2022.  On 17.6.2019, an EMI of Rs.5290/- (for the period of six months) against the total amount of Rs.30,354/- in favour of Kapur Service Station (Petrol Pump), Sector 21, Chandigarh was prepared without the knowledge and consent of the complainant. In the month of July, 2019, a sum of Rs.1899/- (EMI Rs.652.08) for one Assist Fee has been illegally debited through Credit Card from the aforesaid account.  From July, 2019 a sum of Rs.5,762/-(for the period of 24 months) for an E.M.I Rs.274.48 against HDFC Ergo Premium Policy was illegally debited from the aforesaid account. On 17.9.2019, the complainant also gave a complaint to OP No.1 for aforesaid illegal deduction from his account but to no effect. On 02.09.2019, he filed the complaint to the Senior Superintendent, Sector 9, Chandigarh vide Ref. No.PW201916476 against the OPs  but no action has been initiated against them. On 24.09.2019, the complainant filed a complaint before Banking Lokpal, Reserve Bank of India, Sector 17, Chandigarh against the OPs but to no effect. It has been averred that the complainant approached the OPs time and again against the illegal deduction of the amount from his Salary-cum-Saving Account through Credit Card but they did not pay any heed. Alleging that the aforesaid acts of omission and commission on the part of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the complainant has filed the instant complaint seeking directions to the OPs to refund the aforesaid amount with interest, compensation for mental agony and physical harassment as well as litigation expenses.
2.     After service of notice upon OP No.1, they appeared before this Commission and filed their written version stating therein that the EMIs in question were prepared after the complainant gave consent for the same and  the conversation with the complainant regarding consent was recorded (Annexure R-2). It has further been stated that the insurance was done after the complainant gave his consent  and the same was cancelled and amount was refunded in the complainant's credit card on 08-07-2019. Therefore, there arises no question of debiting the EMI of Rs.274.48P. The complainant has not made the Insurance Company as party to the complaint and therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. Till 14-01-2020, Rs.1,00,114/- is due and outstanding against the complainant and OP No.1 reserves its right to recover the same from the complainant.  The remaining allegations have been denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, the OP No.1 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3.     In its separate written statement, OP No.2 has stated that the complainant is not consumer qua OP No.2 as far as the deficiency in service has been alleged. The entire complaint pertains to the illegal deduction of EMI by OP No.1, hence no relationship of the complainant with OP No.2 comes into play. Moreover, the quantity of the diesel purchased by the complainant to the tune of Rs.30,354/- cannot be said to be for personal use but can be considered as for commercial purposes which is best known to the complainant, hence cannot fall under the definition of consumer. It has been denied that OP No.2 time and again for not deducting the above said amount from a salary cum savings account through credit card but they did not listen to complainant. It is highly illogical on the part of the complainant to make any such request to the OP No.2 when the payment has already been made to OP No.2 vide credit card and no such deductions are being done by them either by way of EMI or in the salary cum savings account as alleged. The remaining allegations have been denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, the OP No.1 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4.     The complainant filed separate replications to the written replies of the OPs controverting their stand and reiterating his own.
5.     The parties filed their respective affidavits and documents in support of their case.
6.     We have heard the Counsel for the contesting parties and have gone through the documents on record including written submissions.
7.     The main allegation of the complainant is that OP No.1-Bank deducted a sum of Rs.45,765/- from his savings-cum-salary account on 18.1.2020 and transferred that amount to his credit card, which was already blocked/put hold by OP No.1-Bank, without his consent and approval and OP No.1-Bank keeps on imposing penalties and interest upon the aforesaid amount. Similarly another deduction of Rs.14,000/- was made by mistakenly by OP No.1-Bank and that amount was too transferred to his credit card which is not even working.
8.     It is settled law that the Bank could not transfer the amount from one account to another account on its own free will without the consent and approval of the account holder.  The Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab in F.A.No.1066 of 2007, decided on 30.08.2013 titled as Kuldeep Singh Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board, after referring its own judgment titled as Punjab State Electricity Board Vs. Gurjit Kaur reported as 2004(1) CLT 62 has clarified that the amount outstanding against one connection cannot be added in the account of other connection.  It is, thus, observed that OP No.1-Bank could not disturb the accounts of the account holder without his/her consent and approval of the account holder.
9.     Moreover, there is nothing on record which proved that OP No.1-Bank has ever served any notice upon the complainant before withdrawing the amount from his salary account to the account of the credit card.  The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 provides a very valuable right to the consumer i.e. a right to be informed. OP No.1-Bank is duty bound towards the consumer to inform and educate the complainant regarding the usage of the credit card and to explain and make him understand the terms and conditions governing the usage of the credit card. There is nothing on record that OP No.1-Bank has ever educated or informed the complainant about the terms and conditions regarding usage of the credit card.  The aforesaid acts on the part of OP No.1-Bank certainly amount to deficiency in service as well as adoption of unfair trade practice on its part.
10.     In view of the above discussion, the present complaint deserves to be partly allowed qua OP No.1 and the same is accordingly partly allowed. OP No.1 is directed to refund the amount of Rs.45,765/- + Rs.14,000/- to the complainant along with interest @ 9% p.a.  from the respective dates of its deduction till the date of its actual payment to the complainant. OP No.1-Bank is also directed to issue NOC in respect of the Credit Card bearing No.4893772416210355 to the complainant forthwith.
11.      This order be complied with by OP No.1, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy.
12.     The pending application(s) if any, stands disposed of accordingly.
13.     The complaint qua OP No.2 stands dismissed.
14.     Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Commission 12.01.2024
	Sd/- (AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU) PRESIDENT
	Sd/- (B.M.SHARMA) MEMBER