Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/6/2020

Balwinder singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC Bank Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Sh Manmohan Singh

17 Dec 2020

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION FATEHGARH SAHIB

                                                                                                                Consumer Complaint No.6 of 2020

                                                                   Dated of Institution : 03.02.2020

                                                                                                          Date of Decision : 17.12.2020

 

Balwinder Singh, aged about 52 years, son of Sh. Sital Singh, resident of village Mullanpur, Tehsil Bassi Pathana, District Fatehgarh Sahib.

                                                                             …. Complainant

                                                Versus

1. HDFC Bank Limited, Bank House, Plot No.28, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh-160002, through its Nodal Officer.
2. HDFC Bank Limited, Branch Kalour, Tehsil Bassi Pathana District Fatehgarh Sahib, through its Manager.
3. Harvinder Kumar, Bank Manager HDFC Bank Limited, village Kalour, Tehsil Bassi Pathana District Fatehgarh Sahib.
4. Hitesh Bhatti Cashier, HDFC Bank Limited village Kalour, Tehsil Bassi Pathana District Fatehgarh Sahib.

…Opposite parties

Complaint under Consumer Protection Act

Quorum:     Shri Sanjiv Dutt Sharma, President

                   Shri Inderjit, Member

 

Present:       Complainant Balwinder Singh in person.

                   Opposite Party No.1 exparte.

Sh. Hitesh Bhatti Cashier along with Manager Sh. Harvinder Kumar  for OPs No. 2 to 4.

 

Order dictated by :- Shri Sanjiv Dutt Sharma, President.

ORDER

                   The present complaint has been preferred by the complainant               (hereinafter referred as 'CC' for short) under Consumer Protection Act, against the Opposite Parties ( hereinafter referred as 'OPs' for short). The CC is having an account with OP No.2 bearing No.50100044188437. As such, he is consumer of the OPs. It is alleged that he is a credit worthy customer of HDFC bank and commands respect and reputation. It is specifically alleged that on 26.11.2019, the CC along with his friend went to deposit an amount of Rs.1,45,000/- with OP No.2 and faced some problem regarding which he requested the Cashier to sort it out, but Cashier out rightly denied and used un-parliamentary language to the CC. The CC approached the Branch Manager Sh. Harwinder Kumar, who, also instead of hearing him and solving his problem also used abusive language. It is alleged that the CC humbly requested the OPs to sort out his problem and not to use bad language, but all his requests fell on deaf ears. The CC was also threatened and was even asked to close his account from Kalour Bank Branch. It is averred that on 26.11.2019 there was massive rain and he came all the way to deposit the amount at Fatehgarh Sahib Branch, which caused him Rs.700/- extra.

2.                The main grievance of the CC is that the conduct of OPs No. 3 and 4 has caused unnecessary harassment and mental agony as well as physical dis-comfort to the CC and had to travel about 14 KM in heavy rain due to their behavior in Fatehgarh Sahib Branch.

3.                Thus, terming the act and conduct of the OPs No. 2, 3 & 4 as unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on their part, the CC invoked the jurisdiction of this Commission and has sought Rs.1 lakh as compensation and Rs.1 lakh as penal interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from 26.11.2019 etc. The complaint of the CC is also supported by an affidavit of the CC.

4.                In reply OPs No. 2 to 4 have raised a number of objections on the ground that CC had not approached this Commission with clean hands. Further the maintainability of this Complaint is also challenged. Even the OPs have prayed for the dismissal of the complaint on the ground of locus standi and cause of action etc.  On merit it is admitted that CC visited the Bank on 26.11.2019 in the early hours and at that time the Cashier was settling the accounts and was getting ready to perform his duties. OPs No. 2 to 4 have no personal grudge against the CC. It is further averred that the Cashier requested the CC to wait for some time but the CC instead of listening to him started speaking loudly and used un-parliamentary language to the Cashier, who again requested the CC that he is ready to do his work but all in vain. It is denied that even the Manager or anybody else abused the CC. After that CC did not wait and left the premises in hurry. It is also denied that the staff of the OPs tried to manhandle him etc. It is specifically alleged that the CC concocted a false story.

5.                Thus, alleging no deficiency in service on their part, the OPs have prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. Version of the OPs is also signed and duly supported by an affidavit of Sh. Hitesh Bhatti.

6.                During the proceedings on 17.12.2020 the Branch Manager, Cashier and the CC were present. This Commission tried its best to get the matter compromised. It is important to mention here that even the Branch Manager apologied the CC 3-4 times and was even ready to pay some compensation of Rs.2,000/- since he never wanted to lose his customer, the CC. The behavior of the CC even in the Commission was not good. Even on the request of the President and the Member, the CC was adamant and was not ready to compromise the matter or even listen to anything. Case was taken up 3-4 times and CC was requested to pardon the officials of the bank in case he feels that his sentiments are hurt. The CC was adamant that he wants a good compensation from the officials of the Bank, which proved his mala-fide.

7.                From the perusal of the bank record, we do not find any substantial evidence against the OPs. There is no FIR or even copy of 'Rapt Rojnamcha' or any complaint to any authority to disclose that the CC ever complained this matter to any administrative authority in Fatehgarh Sahib. The CC has mainly relied upon the legal notice sent by the CC to the OPs. Surprisingly the photocopy of the Legal notice is also not signed by any advocate. Further the Annexure C-1 proves that the bank had worked on an amount Rs.1,45,000/-.

8.                Except legal notice, which is not even signed by the advocate, the CC has no documentary evidence to prove his allegations. There is no substantial evidence to prove the act and conduct of OPs No. 2 to 4. We feel that in such circumstances the CC had the option to report the matter to the police or even to his Panchayat or even to the higher authority of the Bank. But there is no such evidence. From the act and conduct of the CC, which was seen by this Commission in the open court, further shows that the CC appears to be a person with hot temperament. Even this Commission tried to pacify him and on the request of the Commission the Manager even apologized to CC 3-4 times, but all in vain.

9.                In view of our above discussion, otherwise we do not find any merit in the present complaint, the same is dismissed, however no cost is imposed on the CC. Certified copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost thereafter the file be consigned to the record room as per rules.

Announced:

December 17, 2020

                                                                                      (Sanjiv Dutt Sharma)

                                                                                      President

 

 

                                                                                      (Inderjit)

                                                                                      Member