- Sri Indraneel Roy,
303, Adarsh Co-operative Group Housing Soiciety,
Plot No.67, Sector-55, Gurgaon – 122 003. _________ Complainant
____Versus____
- HDFC Bank Ltd.,
Goalpark Branch,
133/A, Meghnadh Saha Sarani,
Kolkata-29, P.S. Bhowanipur.
Represented by Branch Manager. ________ Opposite Party
Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, Hon’ble President
Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member.
Smt. Samiksha Bhattacharya, Member
Order No. 42 Dated 27/06/2014.
The case of the complainant in short is that the complainant has a savings bank account vide no.000221160003983 under the o.p. The complainant obtained personal loan from the o.p. vide account no.11268288 and 13431037 and for those loan accounts the complainant had been paying the EMIs regularly. The complainant placed a cheque amounting to Rs.2,60,000/- being cheque no.365595 drawn on ICICI Bank Ltd. The o.p. collected the said amount and credited the same in favour of the complainant. Through Internet Banking the complainant found that on 12.8.09 the balance of savings bank account reflects nil balance and the aforesaid amount of Rs.2,60,000/- collected by the bank has been wiped out along with the previous balance of Rs.2100.59. The complainant did not find any reason for such transaction and made query to that effect. But the complainant did not receive any reply and for that reason he issued a legal notice on 13.8.09 asking explanation for such deletion of said collected amount. After receiving the said notice bank issued a letter dt.12.8.09 stating that the credit card balance shows Rs.5,40,611.35 is lying due and credit card number reflected in the said notice as 4346 7710 0024 1134 which is actually not tally with the credit card number of the complainant i.e. 4181 3620 0010 7018. No due was lying for the credit card of the complainant. Receiving the said reply by the o.p., the complainant made correspondences with the o.p. but in vain. O.p. illegally and arbitrarily deducted Rs.2,62,100.59 from the savings account of the complainant without giving any notice or intimation to the complainant. The complaint petition was amended vide order no.29 dt.12.11.12. The complainant requested the o.p. to inform him about the formalities for closer of his personal loan account being no.13431037 and the o.p. vide letter dt.17.11.11 informed the formalities and the amount in respect of closer of personal loan account of the complainant. The complainant paid Rs.1,52,000/- to the bank on full settlement on 29.10.11 towards the said personal loan account and on 17.11.11 requested the bank to issue ‘no due certificate’, but till date the bank did not issue the same. Such action on the part of the o.p. caused tremendous harassment of the complainant. Therefore, the complainant filed the instant case praying for direction to the o.p. to give credit of Rs.2,62,100.59 in favour of the complainant along with compensation.
O.p. appeared before the Forum and filed w/v. In their w/v o.p. denied all material allegation interalia stated that o.p. has placed their right of “hold on funds” and the same was duly informed to the complainant vide notice dt.12.8.09. Under the clause of “cross default”, “bankers lien and set off” o.p. is lawfully entitled to recover the outstanding dues from the complainant and for that the o.p. is not at all liable. The complainant is indebted to the o.p. to the tune of Rs.5,40,611.35 as on 12.8.09 and the said amount is outstanding since long. The outstanding amount in the credit card bearing no.4181 3620 0010 7018 is Rs.6,70,408.34. The demand notice by the o.p. on 12.8.09 was proper. So there is no deficiency in service on the part of o.p. and therefore o.p. has prayed for dismissal of the case with exemplary cost.
In their evidence in chief in affidavit filed on 18.12.12, o.p. has stated that it was found from their records that the complainant had managed to open to savings bank accounts wth HDFC Bank at two different branches viz. Golpark Branch and Salt Lake Branch upon submitting two different application forms with different and varied personal information about himself and for that reason two Customer I.C. No. i.e. ROY041276M and ROY150875M had been created. The complainant had intentionally and deliberately varied the spelling of his name i.e. Indraneel Roy with the Golpark Branch A/C and Indranil Roy with the Salt Lake Branch A/C.
Decision with reasons:
We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular. It is admitted fact that complainant had a savings bank account under the o.p. and the complainant also obtained personal loan from o.p. It is also admitted fact that the complainant had also a credit card. From the documents we have observed that complainant placed a cheque of Rs.2,60,000/- and the said amount was credited in his account. O.p. has deducted that amount on 12.8.09 for his credit card due. O.p. nowhere stated in their w/v that complainant maintained two credit cards by suppressing material facts. On evidence o.p. disclosed that they have found that complainant used two credit cards by using two different spelling of his name. But on scrutiny we have observed that complainant has applied for his credit card in the name of ‘Indraneel Roy’ not ‘Indranil Roy’. From documents submitted by o.p. we have seen that both the addresses for ‘Indraneel Roy’ and ‘Indranil Roy’ are same. O.p. should check the name of the person before issuing the credit card in same address. But o.p. did not do the same. O.p. did not show any scrap of paper which suggests that the credit card of Indranil Roy was due and for that reason o.p. had sent demand notice to Indranil Roy. O.p. also did not file any credit card statement of Indranil Roy. So, O.p’s claim for impersonation of complainant is not at all tenable in eye of law. O.p. never claimed any amount from Indraneel Roy for his credit card. All on a sudden o.p. took the plea that the complainant used other spelling of his name and for that reason they have deducted the amount from the account of the complainant. O.p. did not provide any clarification for their plea taken in their evidence. O.p. filed their w/v on 21.9.10 and filed their evidence on 18.12.12. So, it is clear that o.p. has taken the plea for different spelling of the complainant’s name after more than two years. It is evident that o.p. is liable for deficiency in service. Therefore, complainant has substantiated his case and he is entitled to get relief.
Hence, ordered,
That the case is allowed on contest against the o.p. with cost. O.p. is directed to give credit of Rs.2,62,100.59 (Rupees two lakhs sixty two thousand one hundred and fifty nine paise) only in favour of the complainant and is further directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand) only as compensation for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only within 45 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 10% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.
Complainant is directed to pay the due loan amount with accrued interest upto 29.10.2011, if any, within 45 days from the date of receipt of the entire awarded amount.
O.p. is also directed to issue ‘no due certificate’ after repayment of the due loan amount, if any, by the complainant.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
