BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.166 of 2014

Date of Instt. 14.05.2014

Date of Decision :13.01.2015

Vipan Kumar Mahajan son of Om Parkash Mahajan R/o 69-L/70-R, Model Town, Jalandhar, Managing Partner M/s Om Sons International, Om Sons House, Model House Road, Basti Sheikh, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. HDFC Bank Ltd, GT Road, Jalandhar through its Manager.

2. HDFC Bank Ltd, Sector 18, Noida through its Manager.

3. HDFC Bank Ltd, Registered Office/ HDFC bank House, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel (West) Mumbai 400013 through its Chairman/MD.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under Sections 12 & 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Present: Sh.Yogesh Malhotra Adv., counsel for complainant.

Sh.Rahul Pushkarna Adv., counsel for opposite parties.

Order

J.S Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under sections 12 & 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the opposite parties on the averments that allured by the advertisement issued, the complainant opened a current account bearing No.00462560002456 with the opposite party No.1 and having transactions in the said account. The opposite party No.2 is also a branch of the opposite party No.3 and under the control and command of opposite party No.3. On 23.1.2012 the opposite party No.2 colluded with one Sunil Kumar and a sum of Rs.18,24,700/- was withdrawn from the account of the complainant without his consent on the basis of forged documents. The amount was transferred by way of RTGS and NEFT in the account of Sunil Kumar. The bank did not follow the banking norms and allowed the account of the complainant to be fudged and hard earned money of the complainant was squandered by the opposite parties in connivance with one Sunil Kumar. It is incumbent upon the banker to obtain a cheque alongwith the application form when money is to be transferred by way of RTGS (Real Time Gross Settlement). The opposite parties had thrown to wind all the norms of banking business by allowing the funds to be transferred without obtaining a cheque of M/s Om Sons International from Sunil Kumar. It clearly shows that the opposite parties had not cared to adhere to the banking norms and by way of adopting a method which is highly dubious and not known in the banking transaction caused loss to the complainant. On such like averments, complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to indemnify him to the extent of Rs.18,24,700/- alongwith interest. He has also demanded compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared and filed a written reply raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability, limitation etc. They further pleaded that complainant opened current bank account with the opposite party No.1 vide No.00462560002456 in the name of partnership firm i.e M/s Om Sons International unregistered partnership firm having its office at Om Sons House, Model House Road, Basti Sheikh, Jalandhar. At the time of opening bank account complainant firm as per mandate has given three authorized signatories with two more signatories as mandate. However, with restricted amount operations that aforesaid three persons having the authority to operate the bank account are as "anyone of the following" i.e Mr.Vipan Kumar Mahajan, Ms.Sudesh Prabha Mahajan and Mr.Sunil Kumar Mahajan. The other two signatories i.e Mr.Nanda Kumar and Mr.Jasbir Kumar have individually restricted operation powers upto Rs.25,000/-. On 21.1.2012 Sunil Kumar Mahajan(Partner) approached the opposite party No.2 and deposited two cheques for a sum of Rs.17,24,000/- and Rs.1,00,700/- drawn in favour of M/s Om Sons International. The said cheques were duly processed and on receiving the amount from the bank of drawer of the cheques the amounts were credited to the bank account of M/s Om Sons International. On 23.1.2012 Sunil Kumar Mahajan (Partner of Om Sons) sent a written request to the opposite party No.2 for RTGS of sum of Rs.17,24,000/- NEFT for a sum of Rs.1,00,700/- from the bank account of firm to his saving account bearing No.2726000100311511. It is pertinent to mention here that request by Sunil Kumar Mahajan was duly supported by following documents:-

a) Original letter head dated 23.1.2012 of M/s Om Sons International duly signed by Sunil Kumar Mahajan, Partner/Authorized Signatory and accompanied by the seal of the firm.

b) The RTGS application form dated 23.1.2012 duly signed by Sunil Kumar Mahajan, Partner/Authorized Signatory and accompanied by the seal of the firm.

c) The NEFT application form duly singed by Sunil Kumar Mahajan, Partner/Authorized Signatory and accompanied by the seal of the firm.

d) Two self attested photo identity proof i.e Pan Card of Mr.Sunil Kumar Mahajan alongwith the RTGS and NEFT application forms.

3. After the request for the aforesaid RTGS and NEFT was received by opposite party No.2, the concerned officer of opposite party No.2 duly verified the signatures on documents provided. On finding the documents/signatures in order made the telephonic call to Sunil Kumar Mahajan partner for confirming the request. It was only after following the norms and guidelines(i.e verifying the KYC of the account holder) as well as getting the confirmation from Sunil Kumar Mahajan the request was approved/processed and the amounts were transferred to be credited to the saving bank account bearing No.2726000100311511 with Punjab National Bank of Sunil Kumar Mahajan. RTGS can be allowed even if it is not accompanied with the cheque. In the absence of cheque the request is taken on the letter of the company/firm duly signed and sealed by the directors/partners/ authorized signatory; as the case may be. In the present case as well opposite party followed all the norms and guidelines before approving/processing the request. Hence it is denied that the RTGS done in any violation of the regulation/procedures. It is further submitted that present complaint of the complainant is expressly time barred as the alleged transaction has taken place on 23.1.2012 and present complaint has been filed after lapse of stipulated time period of 2 years as per the limitation clause. They denied other material averments of the complainant.

4. In support of his complaint, complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of document Ex.C1 to Ex.C13 and closed evidence.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties has tendered affidavit Ex.OP1/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP1 and Ex.OP7 and closed evidence.

6. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard learned counsel for the parties.

7. Counsel for the complainant contended that the opposite party bank transferred Rs.18,24,700/- by way of RTGS and NEFT in the account of Sunil Kumar Mahajan and while doing so the opposite party bank colluded with said Sunil Kumar Mahajan and transfered the amount without obtaining any cheque. On the other hand, it has been contended by learned counsel for the opposite parties that RTGS can be allowed even if it is not accompanied with the cheque. He further contended that in absence of cheque, the request is taken on the letter head of the firm and in the present case all the norms were followed. He further contended that in fact there is dispute inter-se between the partners of the firm and bank has nothing to do with the same. He further contended that the present complaint is also time barred having been filed after two years from the date of disputed transaction. He further contended that even otherwise the account was opened in the name of M/s Om Sons International and whereas the present complaint has been filed by Vipan Kumar Mahajan as partner of the said firm which is not maintainable. He further contended that the account opened by the firm was current account and as such the said firm availed the services of the opposite party bank for commercial purpose and as such the complainant can not be termed as consumer. We have carefully considered the contentions advanced by learned counsel for both the parties. The disputed transaction is dated 23.1.2012 and whereas the present complaint was filed on 13.5.2014 i.e after more than two years, so it is clearly time barred. Serving of notice in no way extend the period of limitation. Ex.OP1 is account opening form and in it the mode of operation is mentioned as anyone or surviver. So account could be operated by Sunil Kumar Mahajan alone as per instructions contained in the account opening form. Ex.OP2 is partnership deed of the firm and as per clause 10 of the partnership deed bank account of the firm could be operated by either of the partners. The opposite party bank allowed the transfer of the amount on the written request by way of RTGS and NEFT. The said written request is on the letter head of the firm and singed by Sunil Kumar Mahajan. It is Ex.OP6 on record. So amount was transfered on the written request of Sunil Kumar Mahajan, partner of the above said firm and for this opposite party bank can not be blamed. Moreover, the account was in the name of M/s Om Sons International, a partnership firm but the present complaint has been filed by Vipan Kumar Mahajan describing himself as a managing/partner of the said firm. So complaint is also not properly filed. Vipan Kumar Mahajan is not consumer of the opposite party bank but M/s Om Sons International is consumer of the opposite party bank. Moreover, the account was opened by the firm and it was a current account, so obviously firm has opened the account and hired the services of the opposite party bank for commercial purpose. So in this view of the matter also, the complainant can not be termed as consumer under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act 1986.

8. In view of above discussion, we hold that there is no merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

13.01.2015 Member President