BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAS NAGAR, MOHALI

                                  Consumer Complaint No.706 of 2014

                                 Date of institution:          18.12.2014

                                                        Date of Decision:            17.11.2015

1.     Ms. Ravinder Kaur Wadhwa wife of Parvinder Singh Wadhwa  through her General Power of Attorney holder Shri Jaspal Singh Malik son of Shri Ram Das Malik, resident of House No.177, Sector 12, Panchkula.

2.     Shri Jaspal Singh Malik son of Shri Ram Das Malik, resident of House No.177, Sector 12, Panchkula.

    ……..Complainants

                                        Versus

1.     HDFC Bank Limited, SCO No.55-57, Phase-7, Mohali through its Branch Manager/authorised representative.

2.     HDFC Bank Limited, Sector 11, Panchkula through its Branch Manager/authorised representative.

………. Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

CORAM

Mrs. Madhu. P. Singh, President.

Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member

Mrs. R.K. Aulakh, Member.

Present:    Shri Sandeep Bhardwaj, counsel for the complainants.

                Shri B.B. Bagga, counsel for the OPs.

(Mrs. Madhu P. Singh, President)

ORDER

                The complainants have filed the present complaint seeking following directions to the Opposite Party (for short ‘the OP’) to:

(a)    to pay to the complainants  interest @ 18% per annum from 28.06.2014 till realization on Rs.2 crores i.e. the draft amount.

(b)    to pay to the complainants  Rs.5,00,000/-  towards air ticket and other expenses for arriving and departing from India.

(c)    to pay to the complainants Rs.5,00,000/- for mental agony and physical harassment.

(d)    to pay to the complainants Rs.51,000/- towards litigation amount.

                The complainants are related to each other. Complainant No.2 is General Power of attorney of complainant No.1. The present complaint is being filed by complainant No.2 on behalf of both the complainants.  The complainant No.2 received draft of Rs.2.00 crores on behalf of complainant No.1. Complainant No.1 has bank account with OP No.1 and complainant No.2 was maintaining account with some other bank. The OPs started facility wherein the draft can be deposited with any branch and the same was to be credited in the account holder within 24 hours. Complainant No.2 deposited demand draft of Rs.2.00 crores with OP No.1 on 28.06.2014 in the account of complainant No.1.  Account Number of complainant No.1 and mobile Number of complainant No.2 was specifically mentioned on the voucher. Complainant No.1 was issued two cheques of dated 08.08.2014 each of Rs.35,00,000/-  in favour of complainant No.2. The complainant No.2 presented these cheques which were dishonoured with the remarks ‘Funds insufficient’.  On this, the complainants immediately approached OP No.1 who informed that no amount has been credited in the account of complainant No.1. Complainant No.2 who was in abroad came to India for presentation of cheque.  The complainant No.2 approached OP No.2 on 12.08.2014 to collect the draft. The OPs refused to handover the draft to the complainant No.2 and told that they would handover the draft to complainant No.1. The OPs even did not handover the draft despite a phone call by complainant No.1 to them. Complainant No.1 arrived in India on 18.08.2014 and the complainants found that the draft was not sent to OP No.1 by OP No.2. It was also found that OP No.2 had made entry of Rs.20,00,000/- in place of Rs.2,00,00,000/-. OP No.2 refused to return the draft and told the complainants to collect the draft from OP No.1. OP No.1 informed the complainants that draft has been received from OP No.2 and the same was returned to the complainant. The draft was presented in some other bank account and the same was credited in the account of complainant No.1 which shows that there was no shortcoming in the draft.  The complainants requested the OPs to pay interest on Rs.2.00 crores from the date of deposit till the date of not crediting the draft. The complainants sent a legal notice to the OPs to which the OPs gave vague reply ignoring the conditions issued by the RBI from time to time. The complainants have suffered financial loss due to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. With these allegations the complainant has filed the present complaint.

2.             The OPs in their written statement have pleaded in the preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable before this Forum being beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction as the subject matter of the complaint is Rs.2.00 crores. Complainant No.2 has no locus standi to file the present complaint.  On merits, it is pleaded that draft of Rs.2.00 crores was in the name of complainant No.1 and was to be collected in the account of complainant No.1 maintained with the OPs.  Complainant No.1 executed general power of attorney in favour of complainant No.2 on 20.08.2014.  Acting of complainant No.2 on behalf complainant No.1 on 28.06.2014 , 08.08.2014 or any other date prior to 20.08.2014 has no relevance in the context of facts in controversy. The draft could not be collected in NRI account as per extant rules. The officer concerned at the Branch tried to contact the complainant at the available mobile No.9041010967 mentioned on the deposit slip but the phone did not respond.  Thus, communication could not established. It was also incumbent upon the part of the complainant that the instrument in question was deposited in the NRE account with the bank and it was also obligatory on the part of the complainant to pursue the fate of the draft.  Cheques of Rs.35.00 lacs were got presented belatedly on 08.08.2014 to secure some undue advantage. Thus, denying any deficiency in service on their part, the OPs have sought dismissal of the complaint against it.

3.             To succeed in the complaint, the complainant No.2 tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 and copies of the documents Ex.C-1 to C-9.

4.             Evidence of the OPs consists of affidavit of Shri Ajitesh, Branch Manager Ex.OP-1/1 and copies of documents Ex.OP-1 and Ex.OP-2.

5.             We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the written arguments submitted by them.

6.             The complainant No.1 is a bank account holder with OP No.1. As per banking facility provided to the complainant, a draft can be deposited with any bank branch of the OPs and was to be credited in the account holder account within 24 hours. The complainant No.2 deposited a demand draft of Rs.2.00 crores with OP No.1 on 28.06.2014 in the account of complainant No.1. In the deposit complainant No.2 mentioned the account number of complainant No.1 and his own mobile number. As per banking practice the amount should have been credited in the account of complainant No.1 within 24 hours. Believing that  be true, complainant No.1 issued two cheques  of Rs.35,00,000/- each dated 08.08.2014 to complainant No.2 and upon presentation the said cheques were dishonoured with the remarks ‘insufficient funds’. Thereafter,  on 12.08.2014 the complainants approached OP No.1 to know the status of the deposited draft of Rs.2.00 crores and it was found that the draft has not been encashed and no credit was granted to the account of complainant No.1 and OPs have taken a false plea that instead of Rs.2.00 crores inadvertently Rs.20.00 lacs has been mentioned in their record and there was some confusion. The complainants asked the return of the draft and OP No.2 refused to return it and  directed the complainants to collect it from OP No.1. Finally with much persuasion the OPs have returned the draft to the complainant and finally the draft was got encashed by the complainants upon presentation to another bank on  20.08.2014. As per the complainants the retention of instrument carrying Rs.2.00 crores  without any cogent and legal reason, depriving the complainants of  rightful property and loss of interest thereon coupled with mental agony and physical harassment is an act of unfair trade practiced and deficiency in service.

7.             OP No.1 has admitted having received the draft of Rs.2.00 crores from complainant No.2 to be credited in the account of complainant No.1. As per the OPs there were some technical reasons for the not crediting the amount in the account of the complainant No.1 who was NRI and as per RBI guidelines, the source of amount was to be disclosed by the depositor/account holder which the complainants have not disclosed and, therefore, credit could not be given. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on their part.

8.             The perusal of Ex.C-6 clearly reveals that the bank draft deposited with OP No.2 on 28.06.2014 has been referred back by the OP No.2 to OP No.1 on 19.08.2014. Thus, it is ample clear that OP No.2 has retained the draft with him from 28.06.2014 to 19.08.2014. During this period it was the duty of OP No.2 to communicate with the complainant as well as the depositor of the instrument whose contact number and addressed were available with it or with OP No.1. OP No.2 has failed to show any communication with the depositor/account holder regarding any query or clarification as pleaded/warranted under RBI guidelines. The only plea of the OPs that their officer had tried to contact the complainants at available mobile number mentioned on the deposit slip but the phone did not respond and, therefore, the communication could not be effected. The obligation of the OPs does not rest here itself. As per the OPs own document Ex.OP-2 i.e. HDFC Bank circular No.175.1/2014 dated 18.09.2014 the relevant is clause 7 wherein it is clearly mentioned  that in case the customer is not approachable on telephone the branch to courier the cheque to the customers address as per bank record accompanied by a cheque deposit return memo. The OPs have failed to show any document or courier receipt in compliance with their own instructions.  Thus, it is ample clear that the OP No.2 has just sit over the draft from 28.06.2014 to 19.08.2014 without any communication to the complainant or the depositor of the draft. Thus, OP No.2 has indulged into unfair trade practice by withholding the draft of Rs.2.00 crores and by not communicating with the account holder/deposit i.e. the complainants and further by not showing any inter branch communication till 19.08.2014 has thus indulged into unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.  Due to the act of omission  having writ large on the part of OP No.2. The complainants have been made to suffer financial loss on account of depriving them the use of their valuable property, loss of interest, mental agony and suffering due to dishonouring of cheque. The complainants have proved their case against OP No.2 on all accounts stated above. Therefore, the complaint deserves to be allowed and the complainants deserve to be compensated.

9.             The complaint is, therefore, allowed against OP No.2 and no order against OP No.1. OP No.2 is directed as under:

(a)    to pay  to the complainants interest @ 9% per annum on Rs.2.00 crores w.e.f. 28.06.2014 till 19.08.2014.

(b)    to pay a lump sum compensation of Rs.25,000/- (Rs. Twenty five thousand only) for mental agony, harassment and costs of litigation.

                Compliance of this order be made within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Certified copies of the order be furnished to the parties forthwith free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced.                           

November 17, 2015.     

                                   (Mrs. Madhu P. Singh)

                                                                        President

(Amrinder Singh Sidhu)

Member

(Mrs. R.K. Aulakh)

                        Member