Date of Filing      : 19.04.2021

                                                                                                                 Date of Disposal: 29.11.2022

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

THIRUVALLUR

 

 BEFORE  TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, M.A.,M.L, Ph.D (Law)                                  .…. PRESIDENT

                 THIRU.P.MURUGAN,M.Com., ICWA(Inter)., B.L.,                                                  ....MEMBER-II

 

CC. No.33/2021

THIS TUESDAY, THE 29th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022

 

Mr.Karate Karrthi,

S/o.Mr.Pon Ramalingam,

No.57/60, South Mada Street,

Maduravoyal, Chennai 600 095.                                                    ……Complainant.

                                                                            //Vs//

1.P.B.Authorized Manager,

   HDFC Bank, 

   Maduravoyal, Chennai 600 095.

 

2.The Manager, HDFC Bank, 

   Maduravoyal, Chennai 600 095.

 

3.The Manager,

   HDFC Bank, Head Office, 

   1st Floor, C.S.No.6/242,

   Senapati Bapat Marg,

   Lower Parel, Mumbai -400013.

 

4. The Managing Director,

    HDFC Limited, HDFC House,

    HT Parekh Marg, 165-166 Back Bay, 

    Reclamation, Church Gate,  Mumbai 400020.                      …..opposite parties

 

Counsel for the complainant                                              :   Mr.V.Balaji, Advocate.

Counsel for the opposite parties                                       :  M/s.King & Partridge.

                         

This complaint is coming before us on various dates and finally on 21.11.2022 in the presence of M/s.King & Partridge counsel for the opposite partites and upon perusing the documents and evidences produced by both parties this Commission delivered the following: 

ORDER

PRONOUNCED BY TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI,   PRESIDENT.

 

This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in insisting the complainant for production of “For SEAL” for the RTGS Transaction along with a prayer to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the proceeding.

Sum and substance of the complaint:-

 

Complainant was a practicing Advocate in Poonamallee Court, Chennai and was having HDFC Current Account No.502 000 131 00 048 in Maduravoyal Branch for past several years.  Also maintaining Gold Loan Over Draft Account and previously maintaining Fixed Deposit Accounts for a tune of Rs.8,00,000/. Originally the complainant started the Account as proprietor and he changed his name from Pon Karthikeyan to Karate Karrthi, while transferring his Account from Vanagaram Branch to Maduravoyal Branch of the opposite parties. He was not asked for any for seal and GST Registration, therefore the opposite parties officials never insisted for any seal from the complainant at any point of time and the act of the opposite party officials was a clear example of “Doctrine of Estopel”.  The complainant’s friend was in urgent need of money for a tune of Rs.15,00,000/-.  On 10.02.2021 at about 01.30pm the complainant entered into opposite party’s Bank and enquired them regarding RTGS services. The opposite party gave a RTGS from to the complainant and asked for “FOR SEAL“. In earlier transaction no “For SEAL” asked by the opposite parties but the 1st opposite party forcefully insisted the complainant “For SEAL” to process further without hearing his proper explaination that he was never insisted for the FOR SEAL at any point of time.  It was submitted that complainant underwent a major operation on his face and had stitches on both side of his face with pain and was under medication.  Due to his emergency he approached the opposite party to avail the RTGS service.  Due to the 1st opposite party‘s inefficient service, the complainant had travelled back home to get a “FOR SEAL” and tolerated all the opposite party disrespectful behavior and followed their steps to process the RTGS Form. Complainant states that in brief, the 1st opposite party has forced the complainant to bring “FOR SEAL” unnecessarily even aware that the complainant was under medication after his major surgery.  From the inception of the premises the 1st opposite party treated him with rude and harsh manner without considering his emergency situation.  On 12.02.2021 the complainant issued legal notice to the 1st opposite party seeking a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-towards the deficiency in service.  But he received a reply notice dated 25.02.2021 from the opposite parties to save the 1st opposite party from legal action they colluded with each others and went on to the extreme step of infringing his right to privacy by threatening and blackmailing the complainant by making false allegations. Thus aggrieved by the act of the opposite parties the present complaint was filed to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as cost of the proceedings.

Crux of the defence put forth by the opposite parties:-

Opposite parties always known for its excellent customer service and all staff and officers are well trained and very professional and courteous in their behavior towards their customers as they work under an appraisal system. Complainant proceeded before this commission under an improper presumption.  The complainant is an individual account holder.  On the contrary the said account was not an individual account but a proprietorship current account held in the name of M/s.Karate Karrthi.  The AML column of the account opening form states that business income was from the film industry hence mandating a rubber stamp for his proprietorship current Account as per the banking norms, as seals or rubber stapes are in fact, a way of confirming the complainants ownership over the Account‘s name.  It was mandatory for banks to verify signatures on affixation of seal before authorizing transactions.  It was in rare cases banks overlook non affixation of seal and pass/authorize transactions depending on the situation/customer’s emergency requirement and regularize that particular transaction in due course. The opposite party’s staff had informed the complainant that the RTGS request form should be signed and affixed with a FOR SEAL and signature as per the norms.  The complainant did not have the FOR SEAL therefore the complainant was accommodated and was allowed to complete requisites before End of Day to which he had agreed.  The complainant had filled in the beneficiary details and brought back the request form as required by the bank and the same was accepted and processed.  Needless to say the complainant did not complete his transaction and a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- was transferred and the complainant had left the premises of the said opposite party’s branch without any grouse.  The CCTV footage establishes the fact. The further averment that the opposite parties were treating his account as individual current account was denied.  Doctrine of Estoppel was not applicable for the banking norms and RBI guidelines. The allegation with regard to the 1st opposite party that 1st opposite party said to the complainant “you do it by yourself via net banking”, forcefully insisted for “FOR SEAL”, without listing to the complainant, thrown the RTGS form with irritating attitude along with other allegations were strictly denied. The staff had verified the Account opening form online scan copy where the customer had provided his seal for the Current Account opening and only on that basis she had requested for seal on the application and also it is pertinent to note that in the AML column complainant has given as business income from film production.  Thereafter he was informed that it requires the beneficiary’s details, ‘FOR SEAL’ and ‘Signature”.  It was not irregular for the bank to inform the client to affix the FOR SEAL in the application form to make transactions in firm accounts. The complainant was made aware of the definite need for a rubber stamp, though he did not carry it, the opposite party was ready to accommodate in processing by giving time to affix the stamp before the end of the day which the customer agreed.  The RTGS transaction was processed the same day and no harmful comments were thrown at him as alleged by the complainant. It was emphatically clear from the CCTV recording that the opposite parties had not indulged in the allegations and contentions set out in the complaint making it evident that Bank has not indulged in any wrong doing calling for any compensation arising out of any deficiency in service.  Therefore, the complaint itself is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. 

On the side of complainant proof affidavit was filed and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A10 were marked on their side.  On the side of opposite parties proof affidavit was filed and documents Ex.B1 to Ex.B7 were marked. 

Points for consideration:-

 

Whether the act of opposite parties in insisting the complainant for production of “For SEAL” for the RTGS Transaction carried out on 10.02.2021 amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service and whether the same has been successfully proved by the complainant?

If so to what reliefs the complainant is entitled?

Point No.1

On the side of the complainant following documents were filed in support of her allegations; 

Copy of Medical Certificate was marked as Ex.A1;

Copy of receipt issued by opposite parties dated 10.02.2021 was marked as Ex.A2;

Copy of legal notice dated 12.02.2021 was marked as Ex.A3;

Copy of the corrected legal notice issued by the complainant dated 13.02.2021 was marked as Ex.A4;

Coy of the reply notice date 25.02.2021 was marked as Ex.A5;

Copy of Rejoinder dated 12.03.2021 was marked as Ex.A6;

Acknowledgements for proof of delivery was marked as Ex.A7;

 Copy of the Cheque & RTGS Form was marked as Ex.A8;

Copy of the Cheque & RTGS Form was marked as Ex.A89;

HDFC Bank Statement of the complainant was marked as Ex.A10;

Receipt for sending paper cups dated 07.01.2022 was marked as Ex.A10; 

On the side of oppostie parties the following documents were filed in support of their defence;

Account Opening Form dated 25.06.2015 was marked as Ex.B1;

Account Transfer Form for Current Account dated 25.09.2020 was marked as Ex.B2;

Copy RTGS/NEFT Request Form dated 10.02.2021 was marked as Ex.B3;

Copy of the cheque issued to the opposite party bank dated 10.02.2021 was marked as Ex.B4;

CCTV footage details at the time of complainant’s visit in CD was marked as Ex.B5;

Document check list of operating Current Account was marked as Ex.B6;

Legal notices and correspondences exchanged between the complainant and the opposite parties was marked as Ex.B7;

Heard both learned counsels appearing for the parties and perused the materials evidences submitted by them.  

The crux of the oral arguments adduced by the complainant is that from 2015 he was holding account with the opposite party’s Bank in 2020 and he changed his Account from Vanagaram to Madhuravayol and also changed his name from Pon Karthikeyan to Karate karthi.  As on 10.02.2021 he wanted to make an RTGS for Rs.15,00,000/- in favour of his friend and approached the 1st opposite party.  However, the 1st opposite party refused and insisted the complainant to get FOR SEAL.  The complainant who had undergone a major operation on his face with great difficulty reached home and brought the seal and completed the transaction.  Further he was treated very badly by the staffs of the 1st opposite party.  Thus stating that he was never asked ‘For Seal‘ for the earlier transactions the present complaint was sought to be allowed as the opposite parties had committed unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.

On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties argued that the complaint itself is not maintainable as the complainant being an practicing Advocate could not maintain a current Account as a proprietor of a concern.  Further for operating a Current Account seal is an necessary element and without seal no current Account could be opened and operated.  Thus he cited the document‘s check list for operating current Account as mandated by law wherein it has been specifically provided that in case of Non-Individual, documents should be attested in respective entity‘s rubber stamp. He also submitted that the Bank’s staffs never treated the complainant without respect and they had done only their duty.  He thus sought for the dismissal of the complaint.

On appreciation of entire pleadings and materials this commission is of the view that the complaint has to be dismissed.  

For the allegation raised by the opposite parties that the complaint itself is not maintainable as the complainant was a practicing Advocate, this commission did not dwelve into the said enquiry as no material was produced by the opposite parties to show that the complainant was an actively participating Advocate and that he does business as a Proprietor. 

On merits of the complainant the defence raised by the opposite parties that for opening and operating an Current Account by a Non-Individual “Seal” is a necessary element was sufficiently explained and proved by them and also that they were acting only as per the acceptable Banking norms and Regulations.  Ex.B6 clearly provides the proof for the same.  Thus, if we discuss the core issue as to whether “For SEAL” is necessary for an RTGS transaction the answer would be in positive.  We could also find Ex.B1 to Ex.B4 the Account opening Form, Account Transfer Form, Copy of RTGS Neft Form, Copy of the Cheque Issued to opposite party’s Bank that was processed and fund transferred all contains the Seal.  Therefore following applicable procedures could not be termed as unfair trade practice or deficiency in service.   Merely for the fact that the complainant was made to travel to home to take the Seal and to come back to the Bank to complete the disputed transaction, we could not hold that the act of opposite parties amounted to deficiency in service or unfair trade practice. Thus the point is answered accordingly in favour of the opposite party and as against the complainant hold that insisting For Seal from complainant for completing RTGS transaction does not amounts to deficiency in service.

Point No.2:-

As we have held above that the complainant had failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, he is not entitled to any reliefs as claimed in the complaint from the opposite party.  Thus we answer the point accordingly.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed.  No order as to cost. 

  Dictated by the President to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 29th day of November 2022. 

 

  Sd/-                                                                                                                      Sd/-

 MEMBER-II                                                                                                    PRESIDENT

 

List of document filed by the complainant:-

 

 

Ex.A1 .............. Copy of Medical Certificate. Xerox

Ex.A2 10.02.2021 Copy of the Receipt. Xerox

Ex.A3 12.02.2021 Copy of the Legal Notice. Xerox

Ex.A4 13.02.2021 Copy of the Corrected legal notice. Xerox

Ex.A5 25.02.2021 Copy of the reply notice. Xerox

Ex.A6 12.03.2021 Copy of the rejoinder. Xerox

Ex.A7 ............ Copy of the receipts. Xerox

Ex.A8 01.03.2021 Copy of the Cheque & RTGS Form. Xerox

Ex.A9 01.03.2021 Copy of the Cheque & RTGS Form. Xerox

Ex.A10 .............. HDFC Bank Statement. Xerox

 

List of documents filed by the opposite parties:- 

 

Ex.B1 25.06.2015 Account Opening Form. Xerox

Ex.B2 25.09.2020 Account  Transfering Form. Xerox

Ex.B3 10.02.2021 Copy RTGS/NEFT Request Form. Xerox

Ex.B4 10.02.2021 Copy of the cheque issued to the opposite party bank. Xerox

Ex.B5 10.02.2021 CCTV footage details. Xerox

Ex.B6 ................. Document check list for operating Current Account. Xerox

Ex.B7 13.02.2021

25.02.2021

24.09.2021

01.11.2021 Legal notices and correspondences exchanged between the complainant and the opposite parties. Xerox

 

 

      Sd/-                                                                                                                Sd/-

MEMBER-II                                                                                                  PRESIDENT