Punjab

Sangrur

CC/507/2018

Sanjeev Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC Bank Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Rohit Jain

20 Feb 2020

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR                                               

               

                                                Complaint No.    507

                                                Instituted on:      04.12.2018

                                                Decided on:       20.02.2020

 

Sanjeev Kumar son of Late Sh. Madan Lal Goyal, resident of
Tapa Street, Malerkotla, District Sangrur 148023.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.             HDFC Bank Ltd. through its Branch Manager, SCF-1, Thandi Sarak, Malerkotla, District Sangrur 148023.

2.             HDFC Bank Ltd. through its Managing Director, Sandoz House, 2^nd Floor, Shiv Sagar Estate, Dr. Annie Basant Road, Worli, Mumbai.

                                                        …Opposite parties

For the complainant    :               Shri Rohit Jain, Adv.

For OPs                    :               Shri S.S.Punia, Adv.

 

 

Quorum:    Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President

                              Shri V.K.Gulati, Member

 

Order by : Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President.

 

1.             Shri Sanjeev Kumar, complainant  has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that Shri Madan Lal Goyal son of Sh. Sohan Lal, resident of Malerkotla, father of the complainant opened his saving account number 06491000007206 with the OP number 1 and the complainant was nominee in the account. Further case of the complainant is that Smt. Pushpa Goyal wife of Madan Lal Goyal mother of the complainant opened her saving account number 06491000007230 with the OP and the complainant was nominee in the account.  The case of the complainant is that Madan Lal Goyal father of the complainant died on 26.11.2017 whereas her mother Smt. Pushpa Goyal died on 2.2.2017.  The grievance of the complainant is that though in both the above said cases the complainant was nominee and was entitled to receive the amount but the Ops did not release the standing amount to the complainant despite the fact the complainant submitted the death certificates of his mother and father to the OPs.  Due to non payment by the Ops to the complainant, the complainant has suffered a lot of mental agony and harassment. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.2,91,689.46 along with interest from 2.2.2017 and further to pay Rs.53,638.41 along with interest from 26.11.2017  till its actual payment and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2.             In reply filed by the OPs, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant has dragged the Ops into unwanted litigation, that the complainant has got no locus standi and cause of action to file the present complaint, that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands.  On merits, it is stated that after receiving the documents from the complainant, the OPs started further process in connection with the request of the complainant. After verification of the documents submitted by the complainant, the OPs disbursed the amount to the complainant. As such any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs has been denied.

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-5 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for Ops has produced Ex.OP-1  to Ex.OP-3 and closed evidence.

4.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.

5.             The learned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently that Shri Madan Lal Goyal son of Sh. Sohan Lal, resident of Malerkotla, father of the complainant opened his saving account number 06491000007206 with the OP number 1 and the complainant was nominee in the account. Further the learned counsel for the complainant has contended that Smt. Pushpa Goyal wife of Madan Lal Goyal mother of the complainant opened her saving account number 06491000007230 with the OP and the complainant was nominee in the account.  The case of the complainant is that Madan Lal Goyal father of the complainant died on 26.11.2017 whereas her mother Smt. Pushpa Goyal died on 2.2.2017.  The  learned counsel for the complainant has further contended that though in both the above said cases the complainant was nominee and was entitled to receive the amount but the Ops did not release the standing amount to the complainant despite the fact the complainant submitted the death certificates of his mother and father to the Ops and due to this the complainant has suffered a lot of mental agony and harassment. The complainant has also produced on record the copies of death certificates of his mother and father on record a Ex. C-4 and Ex.C-5, which proves the death of his mother and father.

 

6.             On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has contended vehemently that after receiving the documents from the complainant, the OPs started further process in connection with the request of the complainant and after verification of the documents submitted by the complainant, the OPs disbursed the amount to the complainant vide documents receipt Ex.OP-1 and Ex.OP-2.

7.             After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the documents on record, we are of the considered opinion that the Ops have released the due amount to the complainant on 28.12.2018 as is evident from the copies of the document/receipt Ex.OP-1 and Ex.OP-2 but the same was released to the complainant only after filing of the present complaint which was filed on 4.12.2018. Now the fact remains that the OPs acted only after filing of the present complaint to release the amount to the complainant.  In the circumstances, we hold that it is a case of clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.  Since the payment has already been released to the complainant but the complainant has suffered mental tension and harassment at the hands of the OPs.

 

8.             In view of our above discussion, we party allow the complaint of the complainant and direct OPs to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5000/- as compensation.  This order be complied with within a period of forty five days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.  A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

 

9.             This complaint could not be decided and order could not be pronounced within stipulated time period because posts of President and Lady Member are lying vacant since 7.8.2018 and 16.09.2018 respectively. The President is doing additional duty only for two days a week.                    

                Pronounced.

                February 20, 2020.

 

 

        (Vinod Kumar Gulati)      (Amrinder Singh Sidhu)

                 Member                            President