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

========

Complt. Case No :  879 of  2009

Date of Institution:    23.06.2009

Date of Decision  :    01.11.2010

1]        Urvinder Singh son of Late Sh.Gurbux Singh (Partner of M/s M.S.Enterprises, SCO 120-121, Sector 17, Chandigarh) resident of H.No.514, Sector 33-B, Chandigarh.

2]        Mrs.Moninder Kaur wife of Urvinder Singh son of late Sh.Gurbux Singh (Partner of M/s. M.S. Enterprises, SCO 120-121, Sector 17, Chandigarh) resident of H.No.514, Sector 33-B, Chandigarh.

……Complainants

V E R S U S

HDFC Bank Limited, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh, through its Manager/Branch Head.  

.…..Opposite Party

CORAM:        SH.LAKSHMAN SHARMA            PRESIDENT

                SH.ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI         MEMBER

                MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA                  MEMBER

PRESENT:   Sh.Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate for the complainant.

Ms.Lucky Palta, Adv. proxy for Sh.R.S.Bhatia, Advocate for the OP

PER MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER

                The instant complaint has been filed by Sh.Urvinder Singh and Mrs.Moninder Kaur against HDFC bank under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

1]             Complainants No.1 & 2 are partners in a firm M/s. M.S.Enterprises.  The two other partners include the brother and Bhabi of complainant No.1.  The partnership firm had a current account with OP Bank, which could be operated by ‘either or survivor’.  Due to a family dispute between the partners, the complainants No.1 & 2 on one side and the brother & Bhabi of complainant no.1 on the other side made a joint request dated 2.3.2009 to the OP to stop/freeze the withdrawal facility from the account till further instructions.  Thereafter, when the terms between the partners improved, the partners again vide letter dated 29.5.2009 with mutual understanding, requested the OP Bank to revive the old position in respect of operation of the account to ‘either or survivor’.  After resumption of the old position, cheques given by the complainants and other partners of the firm to the third parties were duly encashed by the said parties.

                Unfortunately the relationship between the members/complainants and their partners because strained once again. So, they again gave a joint request to the Bank vide letter dated 29.5.2009 to once again change the earlier facility of “either or survivor” to “joint operation” of the account.  The OP assured the complainant that the facility of joint operation would be activated within 24 hours from the receipt of this letter. The account could not now be operated without the consent and signatures of two partners i.e. complainant No.1 and his brother.   The complainants were thus surprised when the OP allowed operation of the bank account on 8.6.20098 and 9.6.2009 singularly by the brother of the complainant no.1 despite the assurance given by the bank. 

                This act of the OP according to the complainant is a deliberate indulgence into unfair trade practice and deficiency in service due to which the complainants have suffered a loss of Rs.25,000/- and Rs.1700/- on 8.6.2009 and 9.6.2009 respectively.  The complainants visited the office of the OP for redressal of their grievance, and refund of the amount wrongly allowed to be withdrawn by the bank, by the brother of complainant No.1.  The OP did not pay any heed to this request and were also not able to give any satisfactory answer to the Complainant. The complainants have thus filed this complaint with a prayer for refund of the wrongly debited amounts, along with compensation and cost.

2]             After admission of the complaint, notices were sent to the OP.

                In the reply filed by OP, it is submitted that they are not  aware of any dispute between the family members of the complainants.  However, it is correct that on 2.3.2009 one of the partners of the firm through written instructions had asked the Bank to stop withdrawal from the account.  This was duly complied with by the bank. 

                Further, when the complainants submitted a letter dated 29.5.2009 that they had resolved the dispute and instructed the Bank to remove the freeze, the OP Bank allowed revival of the old position. 

                A subsequent letter was again given by the complainants and other partners through which the Bank was asked to changed the mode of operation of the account again.  The bank clarified to the complainant and other partners that it would take about 10 days to change the mode of operation and asked them to meanwhile once again block the account.  However, the partners withdrew the balance lying in the account by transferring or making DDs in the name of all the partners of equal amounts and left only rs.1716/- in the account as balance.  The request for change of mode of operation was sent for processing to the Mumbai Office of the Bank.  Meanwhile a sum of Rs.26,000/- was deposited and subsequently withdrawn on 4.6.2009 by the other partner before the Bank could change the mode of operation.  The mode of operation was subsequently changed and at present it is a jointly operated account.  The amount has been withdrawn during the process of change of mode of operation. 

                In view of the above, the OP Bank has denied the allegations of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on their part.  They had allowed operation in the account as per prevalent instructions till the mode of operation could be changed.  It is pertinent to mention here that the amount was deposited by the brother/partner of the complainants and withdrawn by the same brother/partner of the complainants only.  No loss has actually occurred to the Complainant.  The OP has thus prayed for dismissal of the complaint.                        

3]             We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have also perused the evidence & documents led by the parties in support of their contentions.

4]             It is a minor family dispute into which the bank is being unnecessarily dragged.  The complainants along with their family members, who are also partners of the same firm, seem to be continuously wanting to change the mode of operation of their joint account from ‘either or survivor’ to ‘freeze the withdrawal’ etc.   This change is dependant on the cordiality of relationship between the partners.

                It is apparent that the bank would need time to execute such instructions and it would not be possible for immediate change.  The OP has made this clear to the partners and has said so in the reply also.

                Moreover, the amount alleged to have been withdrawn from the account by the partner/brother of the complainants was also deposited in the account by the same partner/brother of the complainants.  It is not that the complainants have suffered any monetary loss.  The bank had on receipt of request for change of mode of operation, forwarded the instruction to their Head Office at Mumbai. The mode of operation could be changed from there only. 

5]             From the above facts and discussion, it is clear that there is no deficiency or unfair trade practice made out against the OP bank.  Therefore, we deem it appropriate to dismiss the complaint as the complainants have not been able to make out any case of deficiency or harassment by the Bank. 

6]             In view of the above findings, we dismiss this complaint.  However, the parties are left to bear their own costs.

7]             Certified copies of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced                                                                    Sd/-

1^st Nov., 2010                                                   LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

                                                                   Sd/-

                                       (ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI)

MEMBER

                                                                                                Sd/-

                                                    (MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

‘Om’