DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

===========

Kala Wati d/o Mohan Lal, R/o #35, Ward No.12, Near Raj Nursing Home, Sunam.

                   --- Complainant

V E R S U S

1]      HDFC Bank Limited, through its Branch Manager, SCO No. 371-372, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh.

2]      HDFC Bank Limited, through its Branch Manager, SCO No. 147-148, Sector 17, Chandigarh.

3]      Rural Electrification Corporation Limited, Regd. Office: Core-4, SCOPE COMPLEX, 7, Lodi Road, New Delhi – 110 003.

---- Opposite Parties

BEFORE:      MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA                       PRESIDING MEMBER

                   SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU             MEMBER

Argued By:             Sh. Aman Dhir, Counsel for Complainant.

Sh. Sunil Narang, Counsel for Opposite Party No.1.

Opposite Party No.2 ex-parte.

Sh. Ravinder Kumar, Authorized Agent of Opposite Party.3.

PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

1.                Briefly stated, the Complainant had applied for REC 54 EC Bonds of Opposite Party No.3, through the Opposite Party No.1, vide application No. 8200693, along with two drafts totaling Rs.3.20 lacs (Details Annexure P-1 to P-3). The locking period (Tenor) of REC 54 EC Bonds was of 03 years and on completion of the said locking period, the Complainant was to get the principal amount, along with interest @ 5.75% p.a. (information memorandum at Annexure P-4). On completion of the said locking period, when the Complainant visited Opposite Party No.1, on 12.01.2012, she was told by its representative, to contact Opposite Party No.2, as the drafts were sent there. On contacting Opposite Party No.2, as advised, the Complainant learnt that no drafts have been sent by HDFC Bank to the REC Department, and these were not traceable also, which according to the Complainant amounts to deficiency in service. When all efforts made by the Complainant failed to fructify, he Complainant made representations dated 13.1.2012 and 12.04.2012 to Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 regarding the status of his application as well as the whereabouts of the drafts given to HDFC Bank (Annexure P-5 colly), but to no avail. Hence, this complaint.

2.                Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.  

3.                Opposite Party No.1 & 2, in their joint reply, denied that Complainant applied for REC 54 bonds of Opposite Party No.3 through Opposite Party No.1 vide Application No. 8200693 along with two drafts and that the Complainant gave drafts totaling Rs.3.20 lacs to the Opposite Party No.1.  It is pleaded that the Complainant deposited form and drafts with Bajaj Capital, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh which in turn deposited the form with Opposite Party No.1. It is admitted that as per instructions given on the application form interest @5.75% is payable annually on June 30^th each year. It is submitted that Complainant visited the Sector 35 Branch on 13.01.2012, and she was informed that her application was not processed, as the drafts given by her were outstation drafts & there was incomplete address on the application form and as per Clause 4(i) of the instructions, incomplete and illegible applications are liable to be rejected (Annexure R-1/1). It further pleaded that application form, along with drafts could not be returned to the Complainant as the address given in the application form is incomplete. The answering Opposite Parties many times called up on the telephone number given in the application form for informing the Complainant about the defect in the form, but nobody picked up the telephone. It is asserted that citing the reasons for rejection, when the Complainant was asked to take back the demand drafts after returning the original receipt, she refused to do so and rather, filed the instant complaint. Receipt of representations dated 13.1.12 and 12.4.12 have been admitted. Denying all other allegations and pleading that there was no deficiency in service on their parts, Opposite Parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

5.                After filing reply, on behalf of Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, Sh. Sunil Narang, Advocate, has made a statement on 21.01.2013, to the following effect: -

“I represent OP No.1 only and have not been authorized to represent OP No.2 for want of execution of separate power of attorney. So, I cannot place on record power of attorney on behalf of OP No.2. Joint reply filed by OP No.1 & 2 be treated as reply on behalf of OP No.1 only and I be permitted to represent OP No.1 only.”

                   In these circumstances, notice was again sent to Opposite Party No.2, seeking its version of the case.  However, despite service, nobody has appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.2, therefore, it was proceeded against exparte on 11.02.2013.

6.                Opposite Party No.3 in its reply pleaded that the contents of the complaint neither relates to REC nor any relief is sought for against REC, therefore the name of the Opposite Party No.3 deserves to be deleted. While asserting that there is no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint qua the answering Opposite Party. 

5.                Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record in support of their contentions.

6.                We have heard the learned counsel for the Complainant, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.1 and authorized agent of Opposite Party No.3, Opposite Party No.2 being ex-parte, and have perused the record.

7.                The Complainant who had applied for REC 54 EC Bonds from Opposite Party No. 3, by filling up the application form no. 8200693 and submitting the same to Opposite Party No.1, along with two drafts of Rs.3,13,000/- + Rs.7,000/- totaling to Rs.3,20,000/- for purchase of 32 Nos. of Bonds. The fact of this application as well as the Drafts having been received by Opposite Party No.1 is proved from Annexure P-2 and is also admitted by Opposite Party No.1.  

8.                The main grouse of the Complainant has arisen for the reason that Opposite Party No.1 did not deposit the drafts in the account of Opposite Party No.3, nor it sent the application form to Opposite Party No.3. The Opposite Party No.1 had stood its ground and while defending itself has brought on record a letter purported to have been written by it to the Complainant, on her inquiry about the status of her bonds, the Opposite Party No.1 has cited the reason that after verification from the records of the bank, it was revealed that the application got rejected in clearing due to “Out Station Cheques” deposited with the application form. Furthermore, the fact with regard to the incomplete address of the Complainant too has been mentioned, for this purpose.

9.                Though initially, Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 had filed their joint reply, but later on, the counsel for Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 suffered a statement, reproduced above, that he no more represents Opposite Party No.2 and the reply tendered by him, earlier, be read as reply on behalf of Opposite Party No.1 only. In the given situation, Opposite Party No.2 being duly served after this episode, failed to put in appearance and was accordingly, proceeded against ex-parte.

10.              The Opposite Party No.3 in its short reply/ version has laid all the blame at the door of Opposite Party No.1 and has washed its hands of the entire dispute mentioned in the present complaint.

11.              As the present complaint is entirely directed against Opposite Party No.1 and the defence taken by the Opposite Party No.1 about the maintainability of the present complaint qua it on the ground that the Complainant is not its consumer, as it had not received any consideration amount for the services which the Complainant has alleged against it. It would be pertinent to deal with this issue at the very onset. We are not inclined to take a ring side view of the present complaint, the manner in which the Opposite Party No.1 treats it to be, but there is a much larger picture to it, which has been thoroughly dealt by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in its judgment titled Central Bank of India Versus Tadepalli Padmaja and others, III (2008) CPJ 124. While expressing its view on a similar situation, it has held that the Bank being the debenture holder on behalf of the consumer is a service provider and hence, a consumer complaint qua it is maintainable, and for all acts of commission & omission, a complaint for deficiency in service is maintainable. Hence, taking queue from the aforesaid titled judgment, the present complaint is maintainable qua Opposite Party No.1. 

12.              The main grouse of the Complainant is about the non-deposit of her money in the account of the Opposite Party No.3 by the Opposite Party No.1 and furthermore, even the application form was not dispatched to Opposite Party No.3 by Opposite Party No.1. Opposite Party No.1 having stated that the “outstation cheques” of the Complainants were rejected in clearing; whereas, the fact is that the Complainant did not deposit any outstation cheques, but these were demand drafts and there is no proof from the side of Opposite Party No.1 with regard to the rejection of these drafts by the clearing branch. The Opposite Party No.1 who was asked to produce the original drafts in the forum, has produced the same, and copies thereof were taken on record as Annexures X1 and X2 respectively.  There is no report from any branch of bank to substantiate that these drafts were produced to be encashed and the same got rejected. In the absence of any such evidence, the claim of the Opposite Party No.1 is rejected being hollow.

13.              Secondly, another reason that Opposite Party No.1 has mentioned with regard to the incomplete address on the application form. We have minutely gone through the application form, wherein the Complainant omitted to mention the name of the city for her residence. But the drafts which were submitted along with the application form clearly reveal the name of the city as “Sunam, District Sangrur”. Hence, it is not expected of refined educated officers of Opposite Party No.1 to ignore this aspect and keep the application form with them and not send it to Opposite Party No.3, who was the sole authority to either accept or reject the form of the Complainant, as per clause 15 of the instructions for investors mentioned at the back of the application form. Meaning thereby, that it was the Opposite Party No.3 alone which had the mandate to either accept or reject the application form of the Complainant for any reason. But as the form did not reach the end of Opposite Party No.3, there was no reason for any such opinion to be expressed by Opposite Party No.1 about its acceptance or rejection. The only responsibility that lay with Opposite Party No.1 was with regard to the acceptance of the money through cheque/ demand draft from the Applicants and in the present case, it had miserably failed in dispensing with its responsibility of accepting the demand drafts, which is a valid instrument and cannot be rejected by the bank branch, where it is produced. In the given case, the neither the draft was sent for clearance nor the application form was forwarded to opposite party No.3 by opposite party No.1.  The basic responsibility of opposite party No.1 were only related to these two aspects and in the given situation opposite party No.1 has miserably failed to dispense with its responsibility.  In the case titled The, Manager, Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. Vs. K. Madhusoodhan & Ors., II (1999) CPJ 2 (Ker.), the Hon’ble Kerala State Commission has held that the consumer is a beneficiary and the application form alongwith the cheques, were deposited with the bank by the complainant.  The bank having failed to send the application form, the complaint against the bank is maintainable and for such an act the Bank is liable for deficiency in service.  The present case is squarely covered by the above mentioned judgment and while gathering force from the views expressed by the Hon’ble Kerala State Commission, opposite party No.1, in the present case, is found deficient in rendering proper service to the complainant, leading to the loss of opportunity to the complainant in not getting the bonds for which he had subscribed for.  The prayer of the complainant with regard to the return of amount of Rs.3,20,000/- cannot be acceded to for the reason that the drafts, not having been deposited, are lying with opposite party.  But at the same time, the complainant would have definitely earned interest on the aforesaid amount, had it remained with her.  Hence, the interest @ 5.75%, claimed by the complainant, which she would have otherwise earned on her investments is her rightful entitlement and at the same time she deserves to be adequately compensated on account of harassment and mental agony suffered by her for the wrongful acts of opposite party No.1.  The present complaint, therefore, deserves to succeed qua opposite party No.1 and the same is allowed qua it.  On not finding any merit against opposite parties No.2 & 3, the present complaint is dismissed qua them. 

14.              In the light of above observations, the present complaint of the Complainant is allowed, qua opposite party No.1. The Opposite Party No.1 is directed to:-

[a]     To return the two demand drafts lying with it to the complainant to enable her to deposit the same back with the issuing back to enable her to get back her amount of Rs.3,20,000/-.

[b)     to pay interest @ 5.75% per annum on the aforesaid amount of Rs.3,20,000/- from the date of Bond Application i.e. 31.12.2008 till it is paid.

[c]     To pay Rs.25,000/-on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and physical harassment to the Complainant; 

[d]    To pay Rs.7,000/- as cost of litigation;

15.              The above said order shall be complied within 45 days of its receipt by Opposite Party No.1; thereafter, it shall be liable to pay the aforesaid amounts, mentioned in sub-para [b] & [c] of para 14 above, alongwith interest @18% per annum, apart from costs of litigation of Rs.10,000/-.

16.              Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

02^nd May, 2013.                                        

Sd/-

 (MADHU MUTNEJA)

PRESIDING MEMBER

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER