Complaint No: 200 of 2019.
Date of Institution: 18.06.2019.
Date of order: 04.03.3024.
Makhan Singh Son of Sawinder Singh, resident of Village Bhandal Tehsil and District Gurdaspur.
…......Complainant.
VERSUS
HDFC Bank Ltd. Kahlon Complex, Jalandhar Road Batala, District Gurdaspur, through its Manager. Pin Code – 143521.
….Respondent.
Complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act.
Present: For the Complainant: Sh.Rahul Puri, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party: Sh.Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate.
Quorum: Sh.Lalit Mohan Dogra, President, Sh.Bhagwan Singh Matharu, Member.
ORDER
Lalit Mohan Dogra, President.
Makhan Singh, Complainant (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (here-in-after referred to as 'Act') against HDFC Bank Limited (here-in-after referred to as 'opposite party).
2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that the complainant is maintaining his account with the opposite party’s bank bearing A/c No. 01621050055113 which he is maintaining since May 2010. It is pleaded that the complainant at the advice of the Manager and another official namely Ms. Shubhneet Kaur of the opposite party’s bank, obtained policy and started depositing of Rs.2500/- per month from dated 06.06.2015. It is further pleaded that on dated 03.12.2015, above said Ms. Shubhneet Kaur stopped policy of the complainant and deposited Rs.15,000/- in shape of Fixed Deposit and told the complainant that he will receive the Fixed Deposit receipt through Registered Post. It is further pleaded that till today, the complainant has not received any receipt, acknowledgement or any kind of document from the opposite party’s bank, despite the fact, that the complainant had been approaching the opposite party’s bank time and again and requesting for the issuance of Fixed Deposit receipt and for the payment of amount deposited by him, but the opposite party’s bank always put the complainant with one or the other excuse. It is further pleaded that act of the opposite party’s bank of not issuing Fixed Deposit receipt or any other document for the above mentioned amount to the complainant is illegal, null and void. It is further pleaded that it is a case of clear cut deficiency and gross negligence in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party who did not issue receipt or any other document for the above mentioned amount deposited by the complainant. It is further pleaded that due to this illegal act and conduct of the opposite party 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 party.
On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party and prayed that necessary directions may kindly be issued to the opposite party to make payment of the above mentioned amount of Rs.15,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% P.A. from the date of deposit till actual realization. Litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.5,000/- may also be awarded in favour of the complainant after accepting this complaint, in the interest of justice and fair play.
3. Upon notice, the opposite party appeared through counsel and contested the complaint and filing their written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the answering OP (HDFC Bank) has been wrongly impleaded party in this complaint. The answering OP has no concern with the transaction in question and there is no privity of contract of the answering OP with the complainant. It is pleaded that the Insurance transaction has been made by the complainant with HDFC Life Insurance Co. The answering OP (HDFC Bank) is entirely separate entity from HDFC Life Insurance Co. The answering OP (HDFC Bank) is only doing Banking Business whereas HDFC Life Insurance Co. is doing Insurance Business. The Liability if any is only of HDFC Life Insurance Co. and not of answering OP (HDFC Bank). So, this complaint deserves outright dismissal against the answering OP (HDFC Bank) on this score alone. The only necessary party in this complaint is HDFC Life Insurance Co. and not the answering OP (HDFC Bank). It is further pleaded that the matter of the fact is that the complainant was maintaining his R.D. account with the answering OP and depositing Rs.2,500/- per month in his account w.e.f. 06.06.2015. In December 2015 the amount of R.D. account was auto credited in the salary account of the complainant. It is further pleaded that the complainant on his own opted for HDFC Life Insurance Policy on yearly premium of Rs.15,000/- per year. He got made D.D. in December 2015 of the answering OP / HDFC Bank favoring HDFC Life Insurance Company payable at Batala. The answering OP / HDFC Bank has no concern with the transaction of insurance entered between the complainant and the HDFC Life Insurance Company. Strict onus of proof lies upon the complainant to prove the allegations made by him against the answering OP and there is no concern of the answering OP with the contract of insurance entered between the complainant and HDFC Life Insurance Company. It is further pleaded that deficiency of service if any lies only on the part of the HDFC Life Insurance Company and not on the answering OP / HDFC Bank and there is no jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Commission to entertain this complaint against the answering OP. The answering OP / HDFC Bank has been wrongly made party in this complaint.
On merits, the opposite party has 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 party. In the end, the opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of Makhan Singh, (Complainant) as Ex.CW-1 alongwith other documents as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-3.
5. Learned counsel for the opposite party has filed an affidavit of Sh. Ankush Sharma, (B.S.O, HDFC Bank, Jalandhar Road Batala, Gurdaspur) alongwith reply.
6. Rejoinder filed by the complainant.
7. Written arguments not filed by both the parties.
8. Counsel for the complainant has argued that complainant is having account with the opposite party bank and on the advice of Ms.Shubhneet Kaur obtained policy and started depositing Rs.2500/- P.M. from 06.06.2015. It is further argued that on the asking of Ms.Shubhneet Kaur on 03.12.2015 complainant had deposited Rs.15,000/- in fixed deposit. However, till date complainant had not received the receipt of the same. Complainant is entitled to receive the said amount alongwith interest and failure to pay the same amounts to deficiency in service.
9. On the other hand counsel for the opposite party has argued that complainant has intentionally not impleaded HDFC Life Insurance Company as a party as Bank and Insurance Company are both different entities. It is argued that complainant had deposited Rs.15,000/- as premium with HDFC Life Insurance in December, 2015 and bank has nothing to do with it, as such there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party bank. It is further argued that Rs.15,000/- was never deposited by the complainant in fixed deposit.
10. We have heard the Ld. counsels for the parties and gone through the record.
11. To prove his case complainant has placed on record his affidavit Ex.CW-1, copy of Aadhaar Card Ex.C1, copy of statement of account Ex.C2, copy of representation Ex.C3 whereas opposite party has placed on file affidavit of Ankush Sharma
12. Perusal of file shows that at one hand complainant admits that policy was issued vide Ex.C3 and thereafter has stated that amount was sent to fixed deposit. We are unable to understand that if complainant admits issuance of the policy then how can there after, the complainant assert that the amount was deposited in fixed deposit. Perusal of file further shows that Rs.15,000/- premium as debited form the account of the complainant on 03.12.2015 and thereafter complainant had not raised any enquiry except Ex.C3 which does not bear any date and present complaint has been filed on 18.06.2019 after delay of two years time prescribed under the Act. Moreover, since HDFC Life Insurance which had issued the policy has not been impleaded as a party nor the policy of insurance has been placed on record. As such we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party bank.
13. Accordingly, complaint being without merit is ordered to be dismissed with no order as to costs.
14. The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases, vacancies in the office and due to pandemic of Covid-19.
15. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. File be consigned.
(Lalit Mohan Dogra)
President.
Announced: (B.S.Matharu)
March 04, 2024 Member.
*YP*
