Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/43/2016

M/s Ludhiana Golden Logistics Pvt. Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC Bank Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Maninder Kaur

17 Mar 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/43/2016
Date of Institution	:	18/01/2016
Date of Decision	:	17/03/2017

 

M/s Ludhiana Golden Logistics Pvt. Ltd. near Punjab Welding Delhi Road, Samrala Chowk, Ludhiana, through its Managing Director Sh. Jasbir Singh s/o late Sh. Harphul Singh.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

1.     HDFC Bank Ltd., SCO No.61-63, Sector 9, Chandigarh, through its Managing Director.

2.     HDFC Bank Ltd., Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana, through its Manager.

……Opposite Parties

CORAM :	S.S. PANESAR	PRESIDENT
	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                       

For complainant	:	Ms. Maninder Kaur, Advocate
For OPs	:	Sh. Sunil Narang, Advocate

 

Per S.S. Panesar, President

1.         The facts of the consumer complaint, in brief, are that the official of the OPs bank approached the complainant and told him that the company can advance loan advance three times the amount deposited by him.  Believing the version to be true, the complainant gave a cheque dated 16.9.2008 of Rs.5.00 lakhs which was duly encashed by OP-2. OP-2 assured the complainant that loan of Rs.15.00 lakh would be sanctioned to him within a short period, but, failed to do so. Thereafter the complainant requested the OPs to return the deposited amount of Rs.5.00 lakhs, but, to no avail. Sh. Amarjit Singh, Regional Manager of OP-2 informed the complainant that one Sh. Ashok Gupta had withdrawn his amount of Rs.5.00 lakhs and that the bank cannot do anything.  The complainant lodged FIR No.181 dated 4.8.2009 against Ashok Gupta/Vishnu Gupta u/s 420, 467,468,471 and 120-B IPC.  The complainant moved an application u/s 190 Cr.P.C, but, the same was dismissed by the Court of Sh. Munish Garg, JMIC Ludhiana on 17.10.2015 mentioning therein the negligence and connivance of the bank official with the accused. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.         OPs in their written reply have taken various preliminary objections including that the complaint is barred by limitation; that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction.  It has been denied that the official of the OPs bank approached the complainant and told him that he can get loan advance three times to the amount deposited by him. The receipt and encashment of the cheque of Rs.5.00 lakhs has also been denied.  The remaining averments have also been denied. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3.         In the replication, the complainant has denied all the averments in the written reply of the OPs.
4.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 
5.         We have gone through the record, including the written arguments, and heard the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel for the OPs. 
6.         On the basis of the evidence on record, learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently contended that the complainant is a Private Limited Company, duly incorporated under the Companies Act, and Sh. Jasbir Singh is one of its directors who has been authorised vide Board of Directors resolution dated 13.12.2008 (Annexure C-1) to sign, verify the pleadings and proceed with the case. The complainant through its officials approached the OPs who told that the company could avail loan three times of the amount deposited by it. Believing their version to be correct, the complainant deposited a sum of Rs.5.00 lakhs vide ICICI cheque No.13800 dated 16.9.2008 of HDFC Bank. The said cheque was duly encashed by OP-2. Thereafter OP-2 assured the complainant that it will sanction a loan of Rs.15.00 lakh to the complainant within a short period of time. The complainant approached the OPs for sanction of the loan, but, they failed to sanction the loan. Thereafter the complainant requested the OPs to refund the amount of Rs.5.00 lakhs deposited by the complainant, but, to no avail. Copy of the cheque is Annexure C-1.   Sh. Amarjit Singh, Regional Manager of OP-2 called the complainant and told him that one Sh. Ashok Gupta has withdrawn the amount of Rs.5.00 lakhs. It was further told that Sh. Ashok Gupta is a fraudulent and OP-2 cannot do anything in the matter. Sh. Ashok Gupta and Vishnu Gupta is one and the same person. The complainant lodged FIR No.181 dated 4.8.2009 against Ashok Gupta/Vishnu Gupta u/s 420, 467, 471 and 120-B IPC with Police Station Division No.5, Civil Lines, Ludhiana and thereafter the police filed requisite challan in the court of Sh. Munish Garg, Illaqa Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Ludhiana.  The complainant also moved an application u/s 190 Cr.P.C, but, the same was dismissed vide order dated 13.10.2015. In order ‘supra’ it has been specifically mentioned that there was negligence and connivance of bank officials with the accused. Copy of the order is annexed at page 17. The act and conduct of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. As such, the OPs may be directed to refund the amount of Rs.5.00 lakhs alongwith interest @ 18% per annum to the complainant and compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- besides costs of litigation amounting to Rs.25,000/- and the complaint may be allowed accordingly. 
7.         But, however, from the appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case, it becomes evident that the alleged occurrence pertains to the year 2008 while the complaint has been filed on 18.1.2016, whereas the prescribed period for filing the complaint was two years from the date when cause of action arose for the first time. In the complaint itself, the complainant has mentioned that the cause of action arose on 16.9.2008 and on 17.10.2015, but, it is settled principle of law that once period of limitation starts running, no subsequent event can stop the same from running. Simple fact that on 17.10.2015, the APP contended that since the bank officials have connived with the accused, therefore, they should be summoned as accused persons will not give rise to any fresh cause of action to the complainant, especially when, the application under Section 190 Cr.P.C. filed by the APP has admittedly been dismissed by the Court. No application for condonation of delay has been filed by the complainant for the reasons best known to it, therefore, we hold that the complainant is palpably hit by limitation and the complaint is not maintainable at such a belated stage.
8.         In the case in hand, the entire incident regarding the alleged fraud took place at Ludhiana. The criminal case was also lodged at Ludhiana. But, however, the complainant, for the reasons best known to it, has filed the present complaint at Chandigarh where no cause of action, or part thereof, has taken place. Simply because HDFC Bank has a branch office at Chandigarh will not entitle the complainant to file the complaint at Chandigarh, particularly when, Chandigarh branch has nothing to do with the alleged fraud. The complainant has wrongly mentioned HDFC Chandigarh Branch through its M.D. as head office, but, the head office of HDFC Bank is located at Mumbai. Documents showing office of Managing Director at Mumbai account for Annexure R-1 and R-2.  As such, we hold that the instant complaint is not competent at Chandigarh and the same is bad for lack of territorial jurisdiction of District Forum, Chandigarh.
9.         There is not an iota of evidence to presume that the cheque drawn on ICICI Bank for Rs.5.00 lakh was encashed by OP-2. No copy of statement of account has been adduced on record to prove the said fact. Simply producing a photostat copy of cheque (Annexure C-1) will not prove that the cheque in dispute was actually encashed by OP-2. There is nothing on record to reach the conclusion that OP-2 ever promised the complainant to avail three times the amount as loan against the sum deposited.  By filing a criminal case against Ashok Gupta @ Vishnu Gupta at Ludhiana, the complainant itself admitted that it was Ashok Gupta who actually got the cheque in dispute encashed.  Now the complainant cannot be allowed to turn around and state that the amount was got encashed by HDFC Bank Ltd.  As such, it appears that the instant complaint has been filed on the basis of cooked up facts and the same is not at all maintainable.
10.         From the aforesaid discussion, it transpires that the complainant has miserably failed to prove its case. The complaint is palpably hit by limitation and the District Forum at Chandigarh has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint.  As such, the instant complaint fails and the same is ordered to be dismissed accordingly with no order as to costs.
11.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
17/03/2017	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[S.S. Panesar]
hg	Member	Member	President