| ORDER | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.658 of 14-10-2014 Decided on 02-05-2016 Devinder Singh S/o Gurdial Singh S/o Deepa Singh R/o Phul Town, Tehsil Rampura Phul, Ward No.2, Patti Mann Phakoho, District Bathinda. ........Complainant Versus HDFC Bank Limited, Opposite Court Complex, VPO Phul, District Bathinda, through its Branch Manager. .......Opposite party Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 QUORUM Sh.M.P Singh Pahwa, President. Smt.Sukhwinder Kaur, Member. Sh.Jarnail Singh, Member. Present:- For the Complainant: Sh.Sarabjit Singh, Advocate. For Opposite party: Sh.Kuldeep Singla, Advocate. ORDER Jarnail Singh, Member The complainant Devinder Singh (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against opposite party HDFC Bank Limited (here-in-after referred to as opposite party). Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that his nephew namely Daljit Singh Mann wanted to go out of country for higher studies and his application for admission into Diploma in International Cookery and Patisserie (1.5) was accepted by North Shore International Academy (NSIA), 100 Symonds St.Auckland City, Auckland (New Zealand) vide letter dated 6.3.2014. It is alleged that on 25.4.2014, the complainant went to opposite party bank. As per demand of opposite party, he deposited cheque of Rs.10,62,525.10/- i.e. 19790 dollar for exchanging the Indian currency in dollar and another cheque of Rs.8,05,350/- i.e. 15,000/- dollar in the name of HDFC Bank Limited. Opposite party got deposited the amount from him @ Rs.53.69/- per dollar. It also charged Rs.2000/- extra from him for transferring the abovesaid amounts at New Zealand. As such, it got deposited the amount of Rs.18,69,875.10/- from him. It is further alleged that the complainant took the rate of New Zealand dollar to Indian rupees exchange rate through internet, then he came to know that on 25.4.2014, the rate of one New Zealand dollar was Rs.52.11 Indian currency. As such, opposite party got deposited the extra amount of Rs.31,268.2/- i.e. 19790 New Zealand dollar 52.11=Rs.10,31,256.90/- and Rs.23,700/- i.e. 15,000/- New Zealand dollar X 52.11=Rs.7,81,650/- whereas opposite party charged as per rate of 53.69 per dollar i.e. 19790 x 53.69=Rs.10,62,256.90/- and 15,000/- x 53.69=Rs.80,5350/-. It is further alleged that after coming to know about the rate of New Zealand dollar, the complainant immediately approached opposite party and told it to return the total amount of Rs.54,968/- as excess amount charged by it and shown it the rate of exchange of Indian currency into New Zealand dollar, then its officials asked him to give in writing and told him that they would forward the same to their head quarter for returning the amount. He gave the application in the bank and opposite party assured him that the amount would be refunded to him within 7 days and it would inform him immediately. Thereafter he many times approached opposite party and requested it to refund the amount of Rs.54,968/-, but to no effect.
On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has prayed for directions to opposite party to refund the amount of Rs.54,968/- charged by it in excess and has also claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.1 lac and Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses. Hence, this complaint. Upon notice, opposite party appeared through its counsel and contested the complaint by filing its written version. In written version, opposite party raised the legal objections regarding cause-of-action; jurisdiction and estoppal. The complainant has filed this false and factious complaint against opposite party and has unnecessarily harassed it by dragging it into uncalled for litigation. As such, this complaint deserves dismissal with special costs to the tune of Rs.10,000/- as provided U/s 26 of 'Act'. On merits also, opposite party pleaded that the amount charges deposited by the complainant as per rules of the bank. The complainant was fully explained regarding the charges and rate of exchange before applying for Indian currency in dollar. He deposited the amount with opposite party after verifying the rates from the other banks/agencies. No extra amount has been charged from him. After controverting all other averments, opposite party has prayed for dismissal of complaint. Parties were afforded opportunities to produce evidence. In support of his version, the complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavits dated 7.10.2014 and 16.3.2015, (Ex.C1 and Ex.C10); photocopy of letter, (Ex.C2); photocopies of receipts, (Ex.C3 to Ex.C5); photocopy of account statement, (Ex.C6); photocopies of cheques, (Ex.C7 and Ex.C8) and photocopy of rate list, (Ex.C9). In order to rebut the claim of complainant, opposite party tendered into evidence affidavit of Sachin Garg dated 5.8.2015, (Ex.OP1/1) and closed the evidence. Despite availing the last opportunities, opposite party was failed to produce evidence. Subsequently, its evidence was closed by order on 3.9.2015. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the file carefully. Both the parties have reiterated their stand as taken in their respective pleadings and detailed above. We have given careful consideration to these submissions. The main controversy involved in this case is regarding getting deposit of extra amount of Rs.54,968/- from the complainant by opposite party. As per the complainant, on 25.4.2014, opposite party got deposited Rs.53.69/- from him for exchange rate of one New Zealand dollar instead of getting deposit of Rs.52.11/- for exchange rate of one New Zealand dollar. As the controversy is regarding rate of New Zealand dollar on 25.4.2014, the complainant has alleged that it was Rs.52.11/-. He was to prove this fact. Only evidence to prove this fact is Exchange Rate History, (Ex.C9). It appears that this document is downloaded from the website www.exchangerates.org.uk. He was required to prove that the exchange rate of opposite party on 25.4.2014 was Rs.52.11/-, but this document will not prove this fact. At the time of arguments, counsel for opposite party has placed on record Treasury Forex Card Rates dated 25.4.2014, which shows that on 25.4.2014, the rate of exchange of Indian Rupees with one New Zealand dollar was Rs.53.69/-. It proves that opposite party has not charged any extra amount from the complainant. As such, there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party. For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is hereby dismissed without any order as to cost. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record. Announced : 02-05-2016 (M.P Singh Pahwa ) President (Sukhwinder Kaur) Member
(Jarnail Singh) Member
| |
