| ORDER | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.572 of 08-09-2014 Decided on 24-11-2015 Hargobind Singh aged about 60 years S/o Dhanna Singh S/o Natha Singh R/o Near Gurudwara Sahib, Nathu Patti, Village Maur Kalan, Tehsil Maur, District Bathinda. ........Complainant Versus 1.HDFC Bank Limited, Registered Office: L.B Road, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai-600041, through its Managing Director. 2.Branch Manager, HDFC Bank Limited, Thana Road, Maur Mandi, Tehsil Maur, District Bathinda. .......Opposite parties 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.Sanjay Goyal, counsel for the complainant. For Opposite parties: Sh.Vinod Garg, counsel for opposite parties. ORDER M. P. Singh Pahwa, President The complainant Hargobind Singh (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against opposite parties HDFC Bank Limited and others (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties). Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that opposite parties carries on business of banking and provide various services such as facility of deposits for fixed term and provide interest to its customers/depositors. They also advance loan to their customers on higher rate than they give on deposits to their customers. The complainant is an agriculturist and rustic villager. He was told by the manager of bank of opposite parties that their bank provides maximum rate of interest than any other bank and deposits with them is more safe and beneficial for depositors. It is alleged that being allured by tall claims made by officials of opposite parties, on 22.9.2011, the complainant deposited a sum of Rs.50,000/- with opposite party No.2 for a fixed period of 380 days on interest @ 9.25% with maturity amount of the same to be Rs.55,031.21/- on 8.10.2012. Opposite parties issued FDR vide account No.21934470000745 of the deposited amount to the complainant. On 8.10.2012, the complainant approached opposite parties for payment of maturity amount of FDR, but they failed to make payment and postponed the matter on one or other pretext and till date payment of maturity amount has not been made to him. He was told that FDR was auto renewal and that has been renewed by the head office for a further period of 380 days and payment of maturity amount can be made only after receipt of afresh FDR to be issued by their head office and no loss is to be caused to him as the interest will be payable upto date of payment of maturity amount. Thereafter he many times visited opposite parties and requested them to make him payment of FDR amount, but everytime he was told that renewed FDR has not yet been received from the head office. It is further alleged that this act and conduct of opposite parties is illegal, unjustified, malafide and against the principles of natural justice and amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has prayed for directions to opposite parties to make the payment of maturity amount of FDR alongwith upto date interest and claimed Rs.25,000/- as compensation, damages on account of loss, harassment and mental tension. Hence this complaint. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared through their counsel and contested the complaint by filing their joint written version. In the written version, opposite parties raised legal objections that the intricate questions of law and facts are involved in this complaint, which require voluminous documents and evidence for determination, which is not possible in the summary procedure under 'Act' and appropriate remedy, if any, lies only in the Civil Court. The complainant has concealed the material facts and documents from this Forum and opposite parties. As such, he is not entitled for any relief. He has concealed the fact that he had opted a sweep in facility in his account after duly understanding its features. As per features of sweep in facility, the balance available in the account above a definite amount as instructed by the customer is converted into a fixed deposit. In case, if the balance is not sufficient in the account to honour the transactions, FD is automatically liquidated in the account upto the extent of amount required for processing the transaction in the account. The customer has submitted a request to purchase DD for an amount of Rs.50,000/- knowingly that the balance available in his account at the time of request was Rs.787.05/- only and for acceding to his request to make DD, FD was liquidated. In case, the customer did not intend to liquidate FD, he would have deposited the required amount in account for DD. Since the balance availed in the complainant's account No.21931000001639 on 18.4.2012 was Rs.787.05/- only when he submitted request to issue a demand draft of Rs.50,000/-, as such, according to the features of sweep in facility, DD was issued by liquidating FD upto an extent of amount of Rs.49,213/-. Interest of Rs.1777.77/- on the said FD from 22.9.2011 to 19.4.2012 was credited in the account of the complainant. He has concealed all these facts to get undue benefit and has no locus-standi or cause-of-action to file this complaint against opposite parties and complaint is not maintainable in its present form. On merits also, opposite parties controverted all other averments of the complaint and reiterated their stand as taken in the legal objections and detailed above. In the end, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint. Both the parties were afforded opportunity to produce evidence. In support of his claim, complainant has tendered into evidence his own affidavits dated 4.9.2014 and 19.12.2014, (Ex.C1 and Ex.C3) and photocopy of FDR, (Ex.C2). In order to rebut this evidence, opposite parties have tendered into evidence affidavit of Atul Salhotra dated 12.3.2015, (Ex.OP1/1); photocopy of demand draft, (Ex.OP1/2); photocopy of account statement, (Ex.OP1/3); photocopy of receipt, (Ex.OP1/4); photocopy of application form, (Ex.OP1/5); photocopy of certificate, (Ex.OP1/6); photocopy of FDR form, (Ex.OP1/7) and submitted written arguments. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the written arguments filed by opposite parties. Learned counsel for the complainant has reiterated his stand as set up in the complaint and detailed above. It is further submitted by learned counsel for complainant that the material facts are not in dispute. It is not disputed that the complainant got FDR of Rs.50,000/-. The maturity value of this FDR was Rs.55,031.21/- and maturity date was 8.10.2012. The original FDR issued by opposite parties is still in the possession of the complainant. He neither opted for any demand draft nor instructed opposite parties to liquidate FDR. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to maturity value of FDR alongwith interest till date and is also entitled for compensation as claimed by him. On the other hand learned counsel for opposite parties have submitted that the complainant has not brought true facts before this Forum. Opposite parties have placed on record application moved by complainant for getting FDR form as Ex.OP1/7. The complainant opted to avail sweep in facility against the deposit. He has specifically instructed that in case of insufficient balance in current/saving account, his cheque/withdrawal be allowed by transferring funds to his current/savings account by breaking units of his fixed deposit. Opposite parties have also placed on record application moved by the complainant for getting FDR in favour of HDFC Life for a sum of Rs.50,000/-.As the balance in his account was insufficient, therefore, in order to honour his request for DD, it was liquidated keeping in view the standing instructions of the complainant/applicant. The complainant is aware that DD was got issued in favour of HDFC Life, but he has intentionally not made HDFC Life as party. Had he impleaded HDFC Life as party, the entire picture would have been cleared to the complainant. This fact also shows that he has not approached this Forum with clean hands. As such, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. We have given careful consideration to these submissions. There is no dispute that the complainant got issued FDR for Rs.50,000/-. The maturity amount of this FDR was Rs.55,031.21/- and maturity date was 8.10.2012. The stand of the complainant is that he has not received any payment against FDR, but as per opposite parties on instructions of the complainant, FDR was liquidated to honour his request for issuance of demand draft payable to HDFC Life. Opposite parties have placed on record FDR form, (Ex.OP1/7). As per this document, the complainant availed sweep in facility and instructed the bank that in case of insufficient balance in current/saving account, his cheque/withdrawal be allowed by transferring funds to his current/savings account by breaking units of his fixed deposit. Opposite parties have also placed on record Ex.OP1/5 i.e. application moved by the complainant for getting DD in favour of HDFC Life for a sum of Rs.50,000/-. Admittedly, on the date of this application, there was insufficient balance in the account of the complainant. Therefore, keeping in view the sweep in facility availed by the complainant, opposite parties have liquidated FDR. The complainant was made aware that FDR was issued from his account in favour of HDFC Life and as per his instructions vide application, (Ex.OP1/5). Despite knowing this fact, the complainant has not taken any step to make HDFC Life as party. Had he impleaded HDFC Life as party, the entire picture would have been clear to the complainant. This fact shows that the complainant was interested of getting DD in favour of HDFC Life. Therefore, opposite parties have acted upon the instructions regarding sweep in facility and issued DD in favour of HDFC Life. In such circumstances, no fault can be found on the part of opposite parties. For the reasons recorded above, this 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 : (M.P Singh Pahwa ) 24-11-2015 President (Sukhwinder Kaur) (Jarnail Singh ) Member Member
| |
