DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016
Case No.402/2012
Shri Hasim
S/o Mohd. Hanif,
R/o 4/28, Nehru Nagar,
New Delhi-110065.
….Complainant
Versus
- HDFC Bank Ltd.
Branch Defence Colony,
D-23, D-Block
Defence Colony
New Delhi
Through its Branch Manager
- Branch Manager
HDFC Bank Ltd.
222-223, Bunamik House,
Sector-16, Noida-201301, U.P.
- Branch Manager
HDFC Bank Ltd.
G-28/29, Sector-18
Noida-201301, U.P.
- General Manager
HDFC Bank Ltd.
Bank House, Senapati Babat Marg
Lower Parel, Mumbai
Maharashtra. ….Opposite Parties
Date of Institution : 14.08.2012 Date of Order :12.01.2018
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
ORDER
Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that OP approached the father of the complainant through their agent namely Shri Kuldeep for personal loan on so many occasions and on telephonic conversion who told him to come at home in this regard; then said Shri Kuldeep replied that he will come on 13.11.2011. The agent came to the shop of the father of the complainant on 13.11.2011 and took mobile No. 9891464591 of the father of the complainant. OP’s agent also visited the house of the complainant on the same day at 07.30 PM. It is submitted that the complainant agreed to take a personal loan of Rs. 5,00,000/- from the OPs on 13.11.2011 after verifying the identity of the agent Shri Kuldeep who had pursuaded him to take a loan from OPs. After satisfaction, complainant had provided the required documents to the agent of the OPs for the purpose of loan. OP’s agent also demanded two cheques as security on which the complaint had given two blank signed cheques of account No. 1341000103711, cheque bearing No. 750646 and 750647 of HDFC Bank which were cancelled by the agent of the OPs himself in presence of the complainant. On 14.11.2011 at about 12.30 PM, the complainant received an SMS from HDFC Bank for encashment of the above said cancelled cheque bearing No. 750647 dated 14.11.2011 of Rs. 40,000/- by the OP at HDFC Bank, Branch Sector-16, Noida, U.P. and cancelled cheque bearing No. 750646 dated 14.11.2011 of Rs.45,555/- encashed from the OP’s HDFC Bank, Branch Sector-18, Noida, U.P. Complainant immediately contacted at his HDFC Bank, Branch Defence Colony, New Delhi about the encashment of the said cancelled cheques but the bank officials did not give any satisfactory reply to the complainant for illegal encashment of the above said cheques. However, the complainant was advised to contact HDFC Bank branch 222-223, Namic House, Sector-16, Noida and HDFC bank Branch 228-229, Sector-18, Noida. Complainant immediately contacted the above said branches of HDFC bank but did not receive any satisfactory reply. Complainant has been cheated by the OP in connivance with their agent Kuldeep Singh and the complainant has suffered mental agony, torture, financial loss of his earnest money of Rs. 85,555/-. In this regard, a case vide FIR No. 322/2011 u/s 420 IPC at P.S. Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi was registered against the said Kuldeep. The complainant has prayed for the following directions to the OPs:-
- To refund the consideration amount of Rs. 85,555/-
- To award an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation against the OPs for committing deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, and causing mental agony and torture, financial loss to the complainant.
- To award an amount of Rs. 25,000/- as legal expenses to the complainant.
OP in the written statement/reply has inter-alia stated that the averments made in the complaint are of the nature of fraud, cheating and not deficiency of service and as such this Forum has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the matters pertaining to fraud and cheating. The present case involves complicated question of facts which requires the evidence and detailed trial and as such the complaint should be dismissed on this ground alone. It is submitted that the complaint is bad for mis-joinder of parties as the person i.e. Mr. Kuldeep who collected the cheques from the complainant and subsequently Mr. Kuldeep and Mr. Malkeet Singh Kooher who presented the cheques for clearance over the counter have not been made the parties in the present complaint. The said persons are necessary parties to the present complaint as they are neither the agents nor officers of the OPs. The said Mr. Kuldeep and Mr. Malkeet Singh Kooher are not agents of the OPs. The claim of the complainant is that the above persons showed photo ID of the HDFC Bank Ltd. however the complainant had not noted the details of the ID. The complainant himself is to be blamed as the complainant did not verify or check the identity of the person who had collected the cheques from him. The complainant gave two signed blank cheques which were cancelled by Mr. Kuldeep in the presence of the complainant. The cheques in question were presented by Mr. Kuldeep and Mr. Malkeet Singh Kooher respectively for encashment with the OP. During the course of encashment of the cheques there was no reason for bank officials to doubt the authenticity of the signature of account holder i.e. complainant. If any fraud is played by the said Mr. Kuldeep and Mr. Malkeet Singh Kooher respectively, by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the OPs had indulged in unfair trade practice. The OPs bank after verifying the signature of the complainant and keeping the ID proof of Mr. Kuldeep and Mr. Malkeet Singh Kooher respectively encashed/ cleared the said cheques in the normal course of banking business. As such the OPs can’t be held responsible for the fraudulent acts of an imposter. It is prayed that the complainant be dismissed.
Complainant has filed a rejoinder to the written statement of the OPs. It is stated that the OPs had cheated the complainant by taking the cancelled cheques under the garb of providing loan to him. The complainant was induced and lured by the representative/ agent of the OPs for a personal loan and under the said inducement, the complainant had agreed to take a personal loan of Rs.5,00,000/- after necessary verification of ID card of the said agent Mr. Kuldeep. It is submitted that the complainant duly verified the identity card of the said agent and by way of the identity card shown by the representative, it was clearly reflected that he was the authorized agent/ representative/ employee of the HDFC Bank and under such bonafide impression, the complainant handed over the requisite documents as well as the cheques to the said representative for the purpose of personal loan. However, the OPs bank in connivance and collusion with his said agent cheated the complainant for his hard earned money by not providing loan to him, rather presented the same for encashment of the cheques which were issued by the complainant as security for the purpose of personal loan and the same were also got cancelled by the said agent himself in the presence of the complainant. Therefore, the said omission and commission amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for which the OPs bank are liable to return the amount of cheques as well as compensation to the complainant on account of mental pain, torture, harassment, mental agony etc.
Complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence. On the other hand, affidavit of Sh. Kartic Goel, Branch Manager has been filed in evidence on behalf of OPs.
Written arguments are filed on behalf of the parties.
We have heard the arguments on behalf of the parties and gone through the file very carefully.
Complainant has filed the account opening form with OP-1 as annexure-A and also copies of the two cheques for an amount of Rs.45,550/- dated 10.10.2011 as annexure-B (colly) and Rs.40,000/- dated 13.11.2011 as annexure-C (colly). OP vide letter dated 14.11.2011 issued a letter to the complainant as annexure-D. A notice under section 91 Cr.PC dated 29.05.2012 in FIR No. 322/11 dated 26.12.11 U/s 420 IPC, from Police Station Lajpat Nagar sent to the Branch Manager HDFC Bank Sector-18, Noida for providing the documents is annexure-E. OP bank vide letter dated 17.07.2012 sent a letter to the Police Station Lajpat Nagar stating therein that original ID is not available and the CCTV footage is also not available with the OP bank. We mark it as annexure-E1 for the purposes of identification. FIR report dated 26.12.11 is annexure-F for the purpose of identification. Original two cheques were forwarded to the Police Station Lajpat Nagar and were seized vide seizure memos, copies of which are Mark H and Mark H1. The complainant has filed the statement of account dated 30.11.2011 as annexure-G.
It is evident from the pleadings that the complainant had handed over the two signed cheques to Mr. Kuldeep. The complainant had not taken any identify proof from the said Mr. Kuldeep and not enquired from the OPs bank regarding taking a loan from the OPs bank whether OPs had sent any such representative or agent from their bank or not. It clearly shows that the complainant without verifying the facts handed over two signed cheques to the unknown person and the said person and one more person had withdrawn the amounts from his account. Complainant has already lodged an FIR with Police Station Lajpat Nagar and final report has not been filed by the complainant.
The question whether the two cheques in question had been cancelled in the presence of the complainant and thereafter had been forged is a question which requires recording of evidence including some expert on the subject and their cross examination. The question of fraud and cheating cannot be decided in the present proceedings which are conducted in a summary manner. The police or the criminal court must be dealing with these questions in the FIR case which has been got registered against the alleged agent Kuldeep Singh and not against the OPs. Hence, we hold that this is not a case of deficiency in service or unfair trade practice.
Accordingly, we dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on 12.01.18.
