Punjab

Sangrur

CC/617/2017

Sohan Lal - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC Bank Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Ashish Grover

19 Apr 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.    617

                                                Instituted on:      22.11.2017

                                                Decided on:       19.04.2018

 

 

Sohan Lal son of Sh. Prithi Chand, Proprietor M/s. Sharma Trading Company, Near Gate No.3, Shop No.65, New Grain Market, Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.             HDFC Bank Limited, Branch Office; Gaushala Road, Sangrur through its Branch Manager.

2.             HDFC Bank Limited, Head Office: Kaula Park, Sangrur through its Senior Manager.

                                                        ..Opposite parties.

 

For the complainant            :       Shri Ashish Grover, Adv.

For Opp. Parties        :       Shri S.S.Punia, Adv.

 

 

Quorum:    Sarita Garg, Presiding Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

 

Order by : Sarita Garg, Presiding Member.

 

1.             Shri Sohan Lal, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant is doing the business of commission agent to earn his livelihood and in order to that he opened a current account and also obtained a cash credit limit from the OP number 2 for Rs.10,00,000/- vide account number 02622790000124 which was extended from time to time to the tune of Rs.31.00 Lacs. Further case of the complainant is that  OP number 2 transferred the limit to the branch i.e. OP number 1 and now the account number of the cash credit limit is 50200010558889. 

 

2.             In the present case, the grievance of the complainant is that on 11.10.2017, the complainant surprised to see that the cash credit limit of the complainant was reduced from Rs.31 Lacs to Rs.13 Lacs and the above said current account was closed by the OPs without giving any prior notice/intimation to the complainant and due to that the complainant suffered a loss of about Rs.4,00,000/-. Though the complainant approached the Ops for making the current account in operation condition and further to increase the cash credit limit, but all in vain. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to restore the cash credit limit to its original amount, to pay compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- due to loss suffered by the complainant in his business and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

3.             In reply filed by the OPs, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant has unnecessarily dragged the OPs into uncalled litigation, that the complainant has got no locus standi and cause of action to file the present complaint, that the complainant has got no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint.  On merits, it is admitted that the complainant is having a cash credit limit and current account with the OP number 1.  However, it is denied that the cash credit limit has been arbitrarily reduced from Rs.31 Lacs to Rs.13 Lacs. I t is stated further that the cash credit limit was reduced by the OPs on the written request of the complainant.  Further it is stated that the current account is still in existence.  However, it is denied that the complainant suffered any loss due to the act of the OPs.  The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-5 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has produced Ex.OP/1 to Ex.OP/2 copies of documents and affidavits and closed evidence.

 

5.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and evidence produced on the file and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits part acceptance, for these reasons.

 

6.             It is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant being a commission agent has opened a current account and cash credit limit with the OPs.  In the present case, this Forum has two questions for determination, which are (i) the OPs have reduced the cash credit limit from Rs.31 Lacs to Rs.13 Lacs arbitrarily without any request of the complainant and (ii) that the Ops have closed the current account of the complainant without any prior intimation to the complainant.

 

7.             First question for determination  is that the Ops have reduced the cash credit limit from Rs.31 Lacs to Rs.13 Lacs arbitrarily without any request of the complainant. The case of the complainant is that he never requested the Ops to reduce the cash credit limit.  But, we are unable to go with this contention of the complainant, as the Ops have produced on record the copy of letter dated 11.10.2017, Ex.OP-2, which is duly signed by the complainant and therein it has been clearly mentioned by the complainant that the cash credit limit of Rs.31 Lacs be reduced to Rs.11 Lacs, as such, this letter falsifies the stand of the complainant that he never requested the OPs to reduce the cash credit limit as mentioned in the complaint.  Moreover, the complainant has not denied the issuance of this letter dated 11.10.2017 to the OPs.  As such, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant got reduced the cash credit limit at his own and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs on this ground.

 

8.             Second question for determination is whether the OPs have closed the current account of the complainant without any prior intimation to the complainant.  The case of the complainant is that the Ops have closed his current account, whereas the Ops have denied this fact that the current account of the complainant has been closed by the OPs.  Though the learned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently that he issued a cheque dated 5.2.2018 Ex.C-2, which was returned by the OPs on 6.2.2018 on the objection that “No debit Status”, but this document of the complainant has no value, as nothing has been averred in this regard in the complaint as it is beyond pleadings. Moreover, the present complaint has been filed on 22.11.2017 and the cheque is dated 5.2.2018, which is clear that this event is after filing of the present complaint.  Since, it is the case of the OPs that the current account is not closed and is in operational condition, as such, we feel that the ends of justice would be met, if the Ops are directed to make the current account of the complainant in operational condition.

 

9.             Accordingly, in view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint of the complainant in part and direct the OPs to make the current account of the complainant in operational condition.  We further direct Ops to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.10,000/- on account of compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment and further to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5,000/- on account of litigation expenses.  This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                        Pronounced.

                        April 19, 2018.

 

                                                                                       

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                            Presiding Member

 

 

 

                                                        (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                                    Member