Punjab

Nawanshahr

CC/38/2019

Sukhwinder Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC Bank Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Mohit Verma

09 Aug 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES   REDRESSAL FORUM, SHAHEED BHAGAT SINGH NAGAR

 

Consumer Complaint No.   38 of 03.05.2019

              Date of Decision            :  09.08.2019

 

Sukhwinder Kaur aged about 48 years wife of Lakhvir Singh son of Baldev Singh, resident of House No.10, Village Majri Mishri Wali, Tehsil Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib.

….. Complainant

Versus

H.D.F.C Bank Ltd., Branch Office at VPO Chakdana, Tehsil and District SBS Nagar (Nawanshahr) through its Branch Manager.

…Opposite party

 

(Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

QUORUM:

SH.KULJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

SH.KANWALJEET SINGH, MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant            :         Sh.Mohit Verma, Advocate

For OP                           :         Sh.Kaladhar Diwan, Advocate

 

Per KULJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

 

1. The complainant-Sukhwinder Kaur has filed complaint under Section 12  of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the OP on the averments that she is having joint limit account bearing A/c No.50200017653690 with OP/Bank. On 09.05.2018 her husband namely Lakhvir Singh visited OP for the purpose of deposit of an amount of Rs.4,98,000/- in his above said account and filled the deposit voucher and concerned cashier stated that amount has been deposited in account and handed over voucher receipt to her husband regarding deposit of the said amount in the above said account. Thereafter, her husband along with his son approached the concerned Branch Manager and orally requested above said matter and Branch Manager assured that amount will be deposited in above said account within few days after verifying the status  and concerned Branch Manager also get the original deposit receipt and also obtained the signatures of husband of the complainant on some papers by stating that same were required for the purpose of verification of status of deposit of the above said amount in the account. As per assurance of the concerned Branch Manager, husband of the complainant handed over the original receipt to concerned Branch Manager and also signed papers as per instruction given by concerned Branch Manager.  Inspite of various visits and request, no amount has been deposited in the above said account till date.  On 09.11.2018, husband of the complainant issued legal notice to OP and requested to deposit the above said amount of Rs.4,98,000/- in the above said account along with interest. But inspite of service of legal notice, OP neither gave the reply to legal notice nor deposit the above said amount in the above said account. Due the above said act and conduct of OP amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on its part. Therefore, she has filed the present complaint and prayed that OP be directed to pay Rs.4,98,000/- on the basis of deposit voucher along with interest @ 18% per annum since 09.05.2019 till its actual realization, besides Rs.2,00,000/- as  treatment expenses which has incurred by the complainant for treatment of her husband as his health was deteriorated due to above said act of OP and Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation for mental harassment.
2. Upon notice, OP appeared and filed written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant raising preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable. The complainant is barred by her act and conduct to file the present complaint.  The complainant has got no locus standi to file the present complaint.  On merits, it was averred that Lakhvir Singh never visited the OP/Bank on 09.05.2018  for the purpose of depositing the amount of Rs.4,98,000/-. As no such amount was deposited by the aforesaid person with the bank, so there arises no question of handing over or issuing of the deposit voucher receipt.  The complainant has cooked a false and concocted story against OP. The husband or son of complainant never approached the bank for complaining any matter as the bank is never involved in such kind of illegal and unethical practices. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by OP and it prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3.  

4.       We have heard learned counsel for the parties, written arguments submitted by the complainant  and have also examined the record of the case very carefully.

5.       The complainant tendered in evidence her affidavit Ex.CW-1/A in support of her case. She deposed in her affidavit that  on 09.05.2018 her husband deposited an amount of Rs.4,98,000/-in account bearing no. 50200017653690 with OP/Bank  and filled in the deposit voucher and concerned cashier stated that amount has been deposited in the account and handed over voucher receipt regarding deposit of above said amount. But the amount has not been deposited in above said account. Thereafter, her husband along with his son approached concerned Branch Manager and complained the above said matter and said Manager assured them that amount will be deposited in the above said account after verifying the status of deposit of above said amount.  Inspite of various visits and request, no amount has been deposited in the above account till date. She alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP. Ex.C-1 is copy of voucher receipt dated 0.05.2018 regarding deposit of above said amount. Ex.C-3 is copy of legal notice dated 09.11.2018 served upon OP. Ex.C-4 is copy of postal receipt thereof. Ex.C-5 is copy of Track consignment. Ex.C-6 is copy of letter of acknowledgment of debt dated 01.11.2018. Ex.C-8 is copy of death certificate of Lakhvir Singh, date of death is mentioned as 20.02.2019. Ex.C-9 is copy of discharge summary of deceased Lakhvir Singh.  Ex.C-10 to Ex.C-32 are copies of advance receipt of payment and copies of bills of different dates.

6.       To refute this evidence of the complainant, OP relied upon affidavit of Parshotam Singh  Head Asssitant/Manager HDFC Bank  District Nawanshahr as Ex.OP-A in support the case of the OP. This witness stated that Lakhvir Singh (husband of the complainant) never visited the OP/Bank on 09.05.2018 for the purpose of depositing any amount of Rs.4,98,000/-. He further averred that complainant never approached the bank for complaining any matter as the bank is never involved in such kind of illegal practices.

7.       From perusal of entire record placed on the file and hearing respective pleadings of the parties, we find that it is an established fact that the husband of the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.4,98,000/- with OP/Bank. This fact is clear from copy of voucher receipt dated 09.05.2018 Ex.C-1 on the record. The said voucher has been signed by the official of the OP, who was sitting at the relevant time of deposit of the amount on the seat of cashier. He handed over the said receipt to husband of the complainant.  The account statement Ex.C-2 clearly shows that above said amount has not been credited in the above said account by OP. The complainant approached  OP/Bank to do the needful but of no avail.

8.       The main point for adjudication in this case, is whether the husband of the complainant has deposited Rs.4,98,000/- with OP/Bank or not? But this fact is clear from voucher receipt Ex.C-1 placed on record and the same is signed by the concerned cashier of the Bank. The counsel for the complainant has produced various judgments in support of his case. Firstly, the case titled as Parmod Kumar Mandal versus Bhuneshwar Pandey and others, reported in 2009(4) CPJ 67 by National Commission, New Delhi wherein it has been held that manipulation of records. Complainant deposited amount in the saving bank account of post office. Withdrawal not permitted. Complaint allowed . The contention  complainant manipulated records not tenable. No outsider expected to have access to these documents. Deficiency in service proved. Payment of deposited amount with interest rightly directed. Similarly, case titled as Punjab National Bank versus Rohtash by State Commission Haryana reported in 2015(2) CPJ 16 that misconduct of casher. Amount not credited. Alleged deficiency in service. Complaint allowed by District Forum. Hence appeal before State Commission. Maintainability of bank in its written statement admitted about misconduct of cashier, who credited deposited amount on different dates for which he has been charge sheeted under Sections 406, 409, 420 of Penal Code and case law titled as  Pindi Fashion Mall Pvt. Ltd versus Oriental Insurance Company Ltd by State Commission, U.T Chandigarh reported in 2012(2) CPJ 52 that  Rs.75,000/- deposited in the Bank had not been entered in the cash book. District Forum allowed the complaint. Hence appeal  OP has not produced any evidence from Bank record to suggest if Rs.75,000/- was ever deposited by complainant in their bank account on that date. Surveyor has wrongly deducted the amount from the cash in hand without examining bank record. Complainant is entitled to said amount of R.75,000/-. Impugned order is modified.          

9.       From perusal of record and gone through the citations produced by complainant on record, we find that OP has  not produced any cogent evidence or document to prove that husband of the complainant has not deposited an amount of Rs.4,98,000/- with bank in the above said account on that date and voucher Ex.C-1 relates to another person. The complainant produced copy of voucher Ex.C-1 dated 09.05.2018 for payment of deposit of Rs.4,98,000/- with OP-Bank. This voucher receipt signed by cashier of the above said bank and this receipt is also duly stamped with HDFC Bank in which specifically mentioned that “cash received”. This shows that payment of Rs.4,98,000/- has been deposited with OP-Bank and OP/Bank cannot wriggle out from the same.  It has been clearly shown from document Ex.C-1 upon which official, who was sitting at the relevant time of deposit of amount on the seat of cashier handed over the said receipt to husband of the complainant and said fact has not been denied by OP. The account statement Ex.C-2 is clearly shows that above said amount has not been credited in the above said account by OP. But inspite of receipt, above said amount has not been credited in the above account of the complainant.      

10.     In the light of our above discussion, we allow the complaint of the complainant and OP is directed to deposit of Rs.4,98,000/- in the account of the complainant with 9% interest from the date of deposit i.e. 09.05.2018 till its realization. The complainant is further entitled Rs.5000/- as compensation for mental harassment and cost of litigation.

11.     The compliance of the order be made within one month from receipt of copy of this order.

12.     Let copies of the order be sent to the parties, as permissible, under the rules.

Dated :09.08.2019

                                      (Kanwaljeet Singh)          (Kuljit Singh)

                                         Member                            President