BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Prem Singh Bist, r/o H.No. 679, R/o Vill. Kishangarh, Mani Majra, U.T. Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

                                      V E R S U S

1]      HDFC Bank Limited, SCO No. 147-148, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager.

2]      Mr. Ashok, Branch Manager, HDFC Bank Ld., SCO No. 147-148, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh.

3]      Parminder Sodhi, Proprietor M/s Tara Enterprises, 53-54, Kansal Enclave, Post Office – Nayagaon, District Mohali.

                                                ……Opposite Parties

CORAM:     SH.P.D.GOEL                                              PRESIDENT

                   SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL                        MEMBER

                   DR.(MRS).MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA      MEMBER

Argued by:    Sh.Gagan Aggarwal, Counsel for Complainant.

                        Sh.C.S.Pasricha, Counsel for OPs No.1 and 2.

                        Sh.Gaurav Chopra, Counsel for OP No.3.

PER P.D.GOEL,PRESIDENT

1.                The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (as amended upto date) “hereinafter referred to as the Act”. The Complainant was having Saving Account No. 02131040001179 with the OPs No.1 and 2. It is the allegation of the complainant that from the statement of account (C-1), it came to light that a sum of Rs.3 lacs had been withdrawn from his account on the illegal instructions of OP No.2, as he had never authorized him to withdraw the amount of Rs.3 lacs from his account. A legal notice dated 1.11.2010 – Annexure C-2 was also served upon the OPs, but to no avail. Hence, this complaint.

2.                 OPs No.1 & 2 in its written statement, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, denied that a sum of Rs.3 lacs were withdrawn illegally or in unauthorized manner from the account of the Complainant. It was pleaded that the Complainant had misused the cheque of one Sh. Parminder Singh Sodhi and, thereafter, fraudulently withdrew an amount of Rs.3.50 lacs from his account. The replying OPs upon being intimated about the fraudulent nature of the transaction, transferred an amount of Rs.3 lacs from the account of the complainant into the account of Sh.Parminder Singh Sodhi. However, in view of the present complaint, the bank had marked a lien on it. All other material contentions of the complaint were controverted. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint.

3.                 OP No.3 in its reply has stated that the complainant had forged his signature and, thereafter, fraudulently withdrew an amount of Rs.3.50 lacs from his account.  OP No.1 on being informed, investigated the matter and upon acknowledging the fraudulent nature of transaction made by the complainant, who was an erstwhile employee of OP No.1, an amount of Rs.3.00 lacs was transferred from his account into the account of replying OP. Pleading no deficiency in service, OP No.3 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.     

4.                 Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5.                 We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

6.                The learned Counsel for the complainant contended that the complainant was having Saving Account No. 02131040001179 with OPs No.1 and 2. As reflected in the statement of account – Annexure C-1, a sum of Rs.3 lacs had been withdrawn from the account of the complainant on the illegal instructions of OP No.2. The complainant never authorized OP No.2 to withdraw the amount of Rs.3 lacs from his account.

7.                The learned Counsel for OPs No.1 & 2 raised the arguments that a sum of Rs.3 lacs were not withdrawn illegally or in an unauthorized manner from the account of the complainant. It was submitted that the complainant had misused the cheque of one Sh. Parminder Singh Sodhi and fraudulently withdrew an amount of Rs.3.50 lacs from his account. The bank upon being intimated about the fraudulent nature of the transaction, transferred an amount of Rs.3 lacs from the account of the complainant into the account of Sh.Parminder Singh Sodhi. He lastly argued that in view of the present complaint, the bank had marked a lien on the amount of Rs.3 lacs.

8.                The learned Counsel for OP No.3 submitted that the complainant had forged his signature and, thereafter, fraudulently withdrew an amount of Rs.3.50 lacs from his account.  The matter was investigated and the complainant acknowledged the fraudulent nature of transaction and, thereafter, an amount of Rs.3 lacs was transferred from his account.

9.                The only point which calls decision from this Fora is whether OPs No.1 and 2 had withdrawn the amount of Rs.3 lacs from the account of the complainant illegally and unauthorisedly. The answer to this is in the affirmative.

10.              It is not the case of OPs No.1 and 2 that the complainant ever authorized the OPs No.1 and 2 to withdraw the amount of Rs.3 lacs from his account. Thus, the OPs No.1 and 2 had no authority to withdraw the amount of Rs.3 lacs from the account of the complainant without his instructions. 

11.              The OPs No.1 and 2 has raised the plea that the complainant had misused the cheque of one Sh.Parminder Singh Sodhi – OP No.3. He fraudulently withdrew the amount of Rs.3.50 lacs but in support of this plea, the bank had not produced any evidence.

11-A.          OP No.3 has raised the defence that OP No.1 investigated the matter and upon acknowledging the fraudulent nature of transaction made by the complainant, an amount of Rs.3 lacs was transferred from his account but to substantiate the said fact, the OP No.3 had not produced an iota of evidence.

12.              Now, it is established on record that OPs No.1 and 2 had transferred the amount of Rs.3 lacs from the account of the complainant without any instructions and authority, which amounts to unfair trade practices as well as deficiency in service on the part of the bank.

13.              As a result of the above discussion, the complaint is allowed and OPs No.1 and 2 are directed to give credit/retransfer the disputed amount of Rs.3 lacs to the account of the complainant. OPs No.1 and 2 are also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation. This order be complied with by OPs No.1 and 2 within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy.

14.              The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. The file be consigned.