Complaint No: 104 of 2023.
Date of Institution: 24.05.2023.
Date of order: 20.11.2023.
Gurjinder Singh Son of Satnam Singh, resident of Village Lalla P.O. Cheema Khudi Tehsil Batala District Gurdaspur.
…........Complainant.
VERSUS
1. HDFC Bank Ltd., Branch Sri Hargobindpur Tehsil Batala District Gurdaspur, through its Manager. Pin Code – 143515.
2. HDFC Bank Ltd., Registered & Corporate Office HDFC House, HT Parekh Marg 165-166 Backbay Reclamation Church gate, Mumbai - 400020, through its M.D / Authorized Signatory.
….Opposite parties.
Complaint U/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Present: For the Complainant: Sh.Rahul Puri, Advocate.
For the Opposite Parties: Sh.B.S. Khaira, Advocate.
Quorum: Sh.Lalit Mohan Dogra, President, Sh.Bhagwan Singh Matharu, Member.
ORDER
Lalit Mohan Dogra, President.
Gurjinder Singh, Complainant (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act (here-in-after referred to as 'Act') against HDFC Bank Ltd. Etc. (here-in-after referred to as 'opposite parties).
2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that the complainant solely for earning his livelihood is running an institute under the name and style of Tatla SCSE Institute Centre at Adda Dhariwal Sohian Tehsil Batala and District Gurdaspur. It is pleaded that along with above said business, the complainant is also running his own CSC Centre and providing services to the general public like preparation of Aadhaar Cards, PAN Cards, Passports, PSS, Booking of Air Tickets, Railway Tickets, scanning, mailing, Driving License and computer training etc. It is further pleaded that the complainant has also got installed POS Machine about 8 years back in his shop. It is further pleaded that since there was not enough work load, therefore, the complainant got the above said POS Machine deactivated only after one year of its installation i.e. for the last about 7 years and in this regard, the complainant personally approached the OP No. 1 and requested to deactivate the above said machine and he also submitted mails to the OP No. 1 time and again. It is alleged that though the complainant is not using the above said machine for the last about 7 years, but the OP No. 1 has not deactivated the same intentionally, willfully and charging money from the complainant regularly. It is further alleged that from 02.06.2022, the OP No. 1 has debited a sum of Rs.8832.30 paisa from the account of the complainant in 15 installments @ Rs.588.82 paisa each. It is further pleaded that in the month of March 2023, the OP No. 1 has demanded Cheque amounting to Rs.2000/- for deactivation of the Machine. It is further pleaded that complainant issued Cheque No.000024 dated 06.03.2023 of HDFC Bank Ltd. Branch Jalandhar road Batala for Rs.2000/-, but inspite of issuance of Cheque the above said machine has not yet been deactivated. It is further alleged that act of the opposite parties of not deactivating the above said POS Machine despite repeated requests by the complainant and charging money for the same without use of the said machine by the complainant is illegal, null and void and the opposite parties are liable to refund the above mentioned amount which they have charged illegally and arbitrarily. It is further pleaded that due to this illegal act and conduct of the opposite parties the complainant has suffered great loss and also suffered mental agony, Physical harassment and inconvenience. It is further pleaded that there is a clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and prayed that necessary directions may kindly be issued to the opposite parties to deactivate above mentioned POS Machine of the complainant immediately and also to refund the amount of Rs.10,832.30 Paisa debited from the account of the complainant illegally and arbitrarily as the complainant was not using the machine for the last about 7 years. It is further prayed that compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- may also be awarded to the complainant besides the amount in question on account of mental agony, physical harassment and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.10,000/- may also be awarded in favour of the complainant, in the interest of justice.
3. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared through counsel and contested the complaint and filing their written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable in the present form. It is pleaded that the complainant is liable to pay the rent amount and other charges regarding the POS Machine issued to him. It is further pleaded that the complaint is liable to be dismissed if provisions are not followed by the consumer. It is further pleaded that the complainant has not come to the Hon’ble Court with clean hands and has concealed the true and material facts from this Hon’ble Commission and the complainant has no cause of action to file the present suit. It is further pleaded that while making the application for installation of the POS Machine from the opposite parties / bank, he has agreed to all the charges and other terms and conditions of the bank in which it has been stipulated that until and unless the machine remain with the complainant, the rent of the same will be paid by him to the bank without any default. It is further pleaded that the POS machine remains with the complainant and he is using the same, but he with intention to get rid from his liability he is leveling false and frivolous allegations. It is further pleaded that POS machine has been deactivated after receipt of request by the complainant and after following the due procedure, but the complainant now with intention to get rid from the charges is putting up false and frivolous facts. The charges have been deducted of the rent and usage of the POS Machine. It is further pleaded that the complainant at the time of installing the POS machine had agreed to pay the rent and other charges until and unless the machine remained with him.
On merits, the opposite parties have reiterated their stand as taken in legal objections and denied all the averments of the complaint and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. In the end, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of Gurjinder Singh, (Complainant) as Ex.CW-1/A alongwith other documents as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-8.
5. Learned counsel for the opposite parties has tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Vansh Mahajan, (Branch Manager, HDFC Bank, Shri Hargobindpur, Batala, Gurdaspur) as Ex.OPW-1/A alongwith other document as Ex.OP-1.
6. Written arguments not filed by both the parties.
7. Counsel for the complainant has argued that complainant had got installed POS machine about 8 years back and as there was no work as such machine was got deactivated after one year. It is further argued that opposite parties had not deactivated the machine illegally and unlawfully and deducted 15 installments of Rs.588.82 paisa from the account of the complainant and thereafter also received a cheuqe for Rs.2,000/- from the complainant for deactivation of the machine. It is further argued that the opposite parties during the pendency of the present complaint refunded the amount of Rs.8832.30 Paisa but had not refunded the amount of Rs.2,000/- which is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.
8. Counsel for the opposite parties has argued that entire amount received from the complainant i.e. Rs.8832.30 Paisa has been paid to the complainant and Rs.2,000/- are the actual deactivation charges.
9. We have heard the Ld. counsels for the parties and gone through the record.
10. It is admitted fact that complainant had got POS machine installed in his shop. It is further admitted fact that opposite parties had received Rs.8832.30 from the complainant in 15 installments. It is further admitted fact that the said amount has been refunded back to the complainant during the pendency of the complaint. The only dispute before this Commission is regarding refund of balance amount of Rs.2,000/-. The opposite parties have not been able to explain that when the machine was already deactivated and major amount which was wrongly received from the complainant was refunded then what was the reason for refusing to refund the balance amount of Rs.2,000/-. Refusal to refund the balance amount of Rs.2,000/- is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
11. Accordingly, present complaint is partly allowed and opposite parties are directed to refund the balance amount of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% P.A. from the date of filing of the complaint till realization. Opposite parties are further directed to pay Rs.1,000/- as compensation on account of mental tension, harassment and cost of litigation. Entire exercise shall be completed within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
12. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. File be consigned.
(Lalit Mohan Dogra)
President.
Announced: (B.S.Matharu)
Nov. 20, 2023 Member.
*YP*
