Haryana

Panchkula

CC/233/2014

NARINDER SINGH KHARBANDA. - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC BANK. - Opp.Party(s)

COMPLAINANT IN PERSON.

19 Feb 2015

ORDER

BEFORE  THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.                    

                                                                                   

Consumer Complaint No	:	233 of 2014
Date of Institution	:	20.11.2014
Date of Decision	:	19.02.2015

                                                                                                                 

Sh.Narinder Singh Kharbanda S/o Late Sh.Charan Singh Kharbanda, Freedomfighter, 1023, Sector-21, Panchkula.

 

                                                                                                             ….Complainant

Versus

Branch Manager, H.D.F.C. Bank, SCO 52, Sector-11, Panchkula.

                                                                                            ….Opposite Party

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Quorum:                    Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

                                    Mr.Anil Sharma, Member.

 

For the Parties:         Complainant in person. 

Defence of Op already struck of.

ORDER

(Dharma Pal, President)

 

1. The complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Ops with the averments that he has a saving bank account No.061100009321 with the Op since 2002. In the year 2004, the son of the complainant was working in India Office of IT Company named G.T.A.Data Service India (Pvt.) Ltd., with Principal Company at U.K. The complainant’s son was working as a Data Operator at the lowest level of Hexarchy and was being supervised by his team leader. Asstt. Manager, Manager & C.F.O, of the Company. The duties of the complainant’s son in India office was to update the payment statements and was to check bills as per company’s process. The bills were prepared by the other billing section of the company and statements were prepared by the son of the complainant and were checked at next three levels before being dispatched to the parent company at U.K. In the year 2006, some dispute arose between the son of the complainant & C.F.O of the company and the complainant’s son resigned from the job. But the resignation was refused and he was forced to withdraw his resignation which he did not. The company for harassing him registered a false FIR No.1188 dated 16.11.2006 with the local DLF Police Station alleging misappropriation of funds whereas all payments by clients were being paid to the parent Company in U.K. directly in the bank account of company in U.K. The company also got included the name of his wife, his father-in-law who were residing at Gurgaon and also the name of the complainant whereas he was residing at Panchkula and have nothing to do with the Company. The Company got ceased all the account of complainant’s son and the complainant with HDFC, Panchkula through HDFC, Gurgaon. The complainant approached the Chairman, Human Rights Commission, Delhi and then the DLF Police excluded the name of the complainant’s daughter-in-law, her father and the name of the complainant while submitting the challan in the court. After that, the DLF Police excluded their names from the challan but inspite of many requests by the complainant, the Bank has not removed No Debit Status from his account. The complainant requested the bank to convert Rs.1,00,000/- into an F.D.R. but the request of the complainant was turned down. Thereafter, the Bank also dishonoured the cheque of Rs.2880/- and the complainant was not able to use his hard earned money for medical care and other needs. This act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service on its part. Hence, this complaint.
2. The authorized representative for the Op appeared but did not file written statement after availing many opportunities and despite availing last opportunity. The defence of the Op was struck of vide order dated 30.01.2015.
3. The complainant has tendered the evidence by way of affidavits Annexure C-A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to C-4 and closed the evidence.
4. We have heard complainant in person and have gone through the written arguments submitted by the complainant and have also perused the record.
5. After hearing the arguments advanced by the complainant and going through the written arguments as well as material available on the case file which transpires that Sh.Nitin Sahni C/o GTA DATA Service (India) Pvt. Ltd., Sushant Lok, Phase-1, Gurgaon lodged a complaint in the year 2006 with the police station, Sector-29, Gurgaon, on the basis of that complaint a FIR No.1188 dated 16.011.2006 u/s 420/406/467/468/471/120B of IPC lodged against the son of N.S.Kharbanda-complainant namely Sukhpal Singh Kharbanda.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               Namrata Khosla and Satish Khosla were accused in that FIR. However, on investigation N.S.Kharbanda, Namrata Khosla and Satish Khosla were found innocent and report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted in the court against the accused-Sukhpal Singh Kharbanda on 25.03.2008. During the investigation, the police station might have got the account ceased of the complainant and other accused persons by obtaining the order of the court. In his complaint, the complainant has not mentioned that on which date his account was ceased and he has only mentioned that he submitted a cheque for Rs.2880/- which was dishonoured but he has not mentioned the date on which he presented the cheque in the HDFC Bank, Panchkula and on which date the cheque was dishonoured. In his written arguments, the complainant has mentioned that HDFC Bank has returned his cheque No.565646 dated 15.01.2007 for Rs.2880/- on 19.01.2007 inspite of having balance of Rs.1,04,587.29 in the account. From the above, it is clear that the cause of action has arisen to the complainant to file the complaint before this Forum on 19.01.2007. However, the complainant has filed the present complaint on 20.11.2014 which is hopelessly time barred. The complainant has not produced any document & has suppressed material facts and information from this Forum and approached this Forum with unclean hands.
6. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that the complaint is time barred and it deserves to be dismissed. Hence, we dismiss the complaint and the parties shall bear their own costs.
7. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to records after due compliance.

 

 

ANNOUNCED

19.02.2014          ANIL SHARMA         ANITA KAPOOR                DHARAM PAL

                              MEMBER                             MEMBER             PRESIDENT

 

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

     

                                         

                                                                        DHARAM PAL

                                                            PRESIDNET