Complainant Amarpal Singh through the present complaint filed U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (hereinafter, called the Act) has prayed for issuance of necessary directions to the titled opposite parties to pay Rs.2,50,000/- to him i.e. Rs.2,00,000/- as interest and Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, physical harassment and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties alongwith Rs.3,000/- as litigation expenses, in the interest of justice.

2.       The case of the complainant in brief is that he alongwith his mother namely Palwinder Kaur wife of late Sh.Sham Singh sold their agriculture land and approached to the opposite party no.1 for opening of their accounts and for depositing amount of Rs.5,00,000/- each in the shape of Fixed Deposits on 9.2.2013. The opposite party no.1 assured him that his amount of Rs.5,00,000/- has been deposited in the shape of Fixed Deposit and he will get Rs.10,00,000/- after a period of 5 years. However, when he asked the opposite party no.1 to handover Fixed Deposit receipt, they told him that the same would be received by him through post office but no fixed deposit receipt or any other document was handed over to him. They requested the opposite party no.1 to either issue Fixed Deposit Receipt or refund his money, otherwise he will be constrained to report to the police and other authorities but all in vain. Thereafter he alongwith his mother moved an application to the Customer Service Department of the opposite party no.1 and only then the opposite party no.1 handed over a receipt bearing No.AAR 17012 Client ID No.60290021 dated 11.2.2013 proposal/policy No.15812842 from which he came to know that the opposite party no.1 instead of depositing his money in the shape of FD invested the same with the opposite parties no.2 and 3 for personal interest without his consent and permission. Thereafter he approached the opposite parties and requested them to return his hard earned money alongwith interest. However, after number of personal visits by him to the office of opposite parties no.1 and 2, the opposite party no.1 returned amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to him in lst week of June 2015 without any interest whereas the opposite parties kept his money for a period of more than 2 years 4 months, but returned the same without any interest, which act on the part of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency, negligence and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint.  

3.       Opposite party no.1 appeared through its counsel and filed its written reply submitting therein that the complainant never asked HDFC Bank for making FDR for a sum of Rs.5 lacs. Neither the complainant gave to opposite party no.1 the sum of Rs.5 lacs at any time for making an FDR.  The complainant never moved any application to the customer service department of HDFC Bank. Moreover, HDFC Bank never issued to the complainant any Receipt Bearing No.AAR17012. In fact this receipt has been issued by HDFC Life Insurance Co. to the complainant. The entire transaction pertains to HDFC Life Insurance Co. HDFC Bank has no concern with the transaction in question. There is no privity of contract of the complainant with HDFC Bank. HDFC Bank is an entirely separate entity from HDFC Life Insurance Co. HDFC Bank is a Banking Company doing only Banking business. HDFC Life Insurance Company is Insurance Co. doing only Insurance business. The liability if any to pay the amount is only of HDFC Insurance Co. and not of HDFC Bank. All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

4.         Opposite parties No.2 and 3 appeared through their counsel and filed their written reply taking the preliminary objections that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint; there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. As per request of the complainant, the whole amount of Rs.5,00,000/- has been returned. At that time no objection has been raised by the complainant and the amount has been accepted by the complainant without any protest. The complainant is now making false excuses. Further no question of interest arises as the complainant even remained under insurance cover for that period and the complainant has not come to the Court with clean hands and concealed the material facts from this Ld.Court. Actually, at the time of getting the payment, the complainant gave document in favour of the insurance company that he received amount as full and final settlement and now he has no grievance against the complainant and shall not claim anything. So the complaint is liable to be dismissed. On merits, it was submitted that at the time of getting the payment, the complainant gave document in favour of the insurance company that he received amount as full and final settlement and now he has no grievance against the complainant and shall not claim anything. So the complaint is liable to be dismissed. All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

5.       Complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith other documents Ex.C2 & Ex.C3 and closed the evidence.

6.       Sh.Randeep Singh Sales Officer HDFC Bank tendered into evidence his own affidavit  Ex.OP-1/1 alongwith other documents Ex.OP1/2 to Ex.OP1/4 and closed the evidence.

7.       Counsel for the opposite parties no.2 & 3 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Amit Khanna Associate Manager Legal Ex.OP-2,3/1 alongwith other documents Ex.OP-2,3/2 to Ex.OP-2,3/10 and closed the evidence.

8.      We have carefully gone through the pleadings of both the parties; arguments advanced by their respective counsels and have also appreciated the evidence produced on record with the valuable assistance of the learned counsels for the purposes of adjudication of the present complaint.

9.         At the outset, it was submitted by the counsel for the opposite party that the policy in question was admittedly a Unit Linked Policy and as such the claim made is not maintainable before the Foras under the Act. In support of his submissions he cited a judgment of Hon’ble National Commission ‘2013 (3) CPJ 203 N.C. (Ram Lal Aggarwal Vs. Bajaj Allianze Life Insurance Company)’. It is very clear from the judgment cited above that the complaint in respect of the claim under ULIP (Unit Linked Insurance Policy) is not maintainable under the Act; the money having been invested in a speculative business. We also find that the present disputed insurance policy is also a ULIP Policy as is clear from the document Ex.OP2,3/3. The learned counsel for the complainant could not refute this submission so raised by the learned counsel for the opposite party.

10.      In view of our above discussion, the complaint is dismissed as not maintainable before the Fora under the Act, without prejudice to the rights of the complainant to seek his remedy before the appropriate Forum/Court.   

11.      Copies of the orders be communicated to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.

   (Naveen Puri)

                                                                        President     

ANNOUNCED:                                              (Jagdeep Kaur)

February, 18 2016.                                       Member.

*MK*