| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BATHINDA C.C.No. 39 of 13-2-2019 Decided on : 06-07-2023 Anju Bala alias Anju Garg, aged about 42 years, W/o Sh. Rakesh Kumar, R/o # 5066, Street Arjun Dass, Gali Affim Wali, Bathinda. ........Complainant Versus HDFC Bank Ltd., Branch Office : 3027 B, Guru Kanshi Marg, Bathinda 151001, through its Branch Manager. Mr. Vinod Sharma, Cluster Head, HDFC Bank Ltd., 3027-B, Guru Kanshi Marg, Bathinda 151001. HDFC Bank Ltd., HDFC Bank House, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai 400013, through its Managing Director/C.E.O.
.......Opposite parties Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 QUORUM Sh. Lalit Mohan Dogra, President Sh. Shivdev Singh, Member Present : For the complainant : Sh. Vikesh Kumar, Advocate. For opposite parties : Sh. Sanjay Goyal, Advocate, for OP No.1. Opposite party No.2 deleted. Opposite party No.3 Ex-parte. ORDER Lalit Mohan Dogra, President The complainant Anju Bala (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Now C.P. Act, 2019, here-in after referred to as 'Act') before this Forum (Now Commission) against HDFC Bank Ltd., and others (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties). Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that the actual name of the complainant is Anju Bala, however, she used to put her signatures as Anju Garg. Even in her ID proofs like PAN Card, Voter Card etc. have also been issued in her name as Anju Bala. In the year 2004, some of the officials of opposite parties approached the complainant to open a bank account with the opposite parties/bank and on giving her consent, visiting officials of the opposite parties obtained the signatures of complainant on some blank printed forms with the pretext that the same are in lieu of opening -a new bank account with opposite parties/bank-branch and that the bank officials themselves filled the same and also got collected her ID proof i.e. photocopy of Voter Card, in which name of the complainant was mentioned as Anju Bala. It is alleged that actual name of the complainant is Anju Bala, however, she used to put her signatures as Anju Garg, so she put her signatures on the alleged account opening forms and other documents as Anju Garg and the complainant also deposited the preliminary amount, required for the opening of new bank account. Accordingly, opposite parties opened new bank account of the complainant by her name to be as Anju Garg having bank account no. 01871000085430 and issued the pass book without making any entry regarding the deposit of preliminary amount, as aforesaid. Although the complainant had supplied the copy of her Voter ID Card to the opposite parties, which was issued by the competent authority by mentioning the name of the complainant to be as Anju Bala, yet the opposite parties had opened the bank account of the complainant by her name as Anju Garg. Further on the consent of the complainant, opposite parties also opened D-mat account of the complainant with their bank in the name of Anju Garg on the same lines of bank account in place of Anju Bala. It is further alleged that after few years, opposite parties/ bank demanded the copy of PAN card of the complainant with the pretext that the same is mandatory for both the bank accounts. Accordingly, in the year 2010, the complainant supplied the copy of her PAN card to the opposite parties/bank, in which also, the name of the complainant was mentioned as Anju Bala, but the opposite parties did not raise any objection even on that occasion also. The complainant alleged that GAIL (India) Limited issued Dividend to the complainant vide cheque no.711714 dated 23.01.2018 for Rs.252.45. Similarly, NTPC Limited also issued dividend to the complainant vide cheque no. 084643 dated 15.02.2018 for Rs.273/- , cheque no.070066 dated 26.03.2018 for Rs.105.83 and all the cheques were valid for three months only. Accordingly, on 11.04.2018, the complainant visited the opposite parties/ bank-branch to deposit the aforesaid cheques in her aforesaid bank account and filled two different cheque deposit slips for the deposit of aforesaid cheques, but to the utter surprise of the complainant that bank officials of the opposite. parties returned both the aforesaid cheques to the complainant as unpaid without issuing any cheque returning memos and rather by mentioned the reasons on cheque deposit slips itself i.e 'A/c Blocked'. It is also alleged that complainant made repeated requests to the opposite parties that she is ready to complete any formality for the activation of the aforesaid bank account and further requested to accept the cheques as the validity thereof is only for three months, but to no effect rather bank officials/ opposite parties started insisting the complainant to supply her ID proof in the name of Anju Garg with the pretext that the ID proof of the complainant are in the name of Anju Bala whereas the account is in the name of Anju Garg and that without submission of ID proof in the name of Anju Garg, opposite parties cannot allow the complainant to transact the aforesaid bank account. The complainant further alleged that feeling aggrieved, the complainant made a complaint to M.D. of the bank i.e. to opposite party No.3 vide mail dated 08.07.2018, but to no effect. So, she again sent reminder vide mail dated 2.07.2018. Before sending the reminder, the complainant made calls on Customer Care No. 1860-26-76161 and ultimately, the complainant was given 1st complaint ref. no. HBL-050-209-535 dated 14.07.2018. 2nd complaint was made to Customer Grievance Cell, who given no. HBL 050 627-979, but did nothing. Thereafter, the complainant made a complaint vide speed post dated 07.08.2018 and ultimately, the complainant received a letter dated 24.08.2018 from the higher authority of the opposite parties (in which name of the complainant was mentioned as Anju Bala and name of husband of the complainant was wrongly mentioned as Ramesh Kumar in place of Rakesh Kumar), but this letter was too proved eye wash only. It is also alleged that on hearing the entire happening, Cluster Head of the opposite party bank namely Vinod Sharma i.e. opposite party No.2 confessed the mistake on the part of bank officials/opposite parties, however, no positive steps were taken in this regard. Due to the aforesaid adament attitude of the opposite parties, the validity of the aforesaid cheques have already been expired and the complainant has already suffered monetary loss to the tune of about Rs.700/-. The complainant also alleged that thereafter, the complainant again received dividend to the tune of Rs.239/- from NTPC Limited vide cheque no. 071438 dated 01.10.2018, Rs.63.36 from GAIL (INDIA) Limited vide cheque no. 839547 dated 19.09.2018 and also Rs.453/- issued by ICICI Bank Limited, vide cheque no. 120800 Dated 13.09.2018 and the complainant again visited the opposite parties/bank-branch to deposit the aforesaid cheques, but opposite parties again flatly refused to receive the same and the validity of the aforesaid cheques have also been expired and the complainant again suffered monetary loss to the tune of about Rs.850/- at the hands of opposite parties, without any fault on her part The complainant also got served a registered legal notice upon the opposite parties, but to no effect. Due to aforesaid adamant act, conduct and attitude of the opposite parties, the complainant suffered mental tension, agony, loss of reputation, for which she claims Rs.1,00,000/- as damages. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to reimburse Rs.1550/- on account of expiry of cheques; reactive the aforesaid bank account and D-mat account of the complainant and pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation on account of mental tension, agony and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses. On the statement of learned counsel for complainant, name of opposite party No. 2 was deleted from the array of the opposite parties vide order dated 20-02-2019. Registered A.D. Notice of complaint was sent to the opposite parties. None appeared on behalf of opposite party No. 3, as such, opposite party No. 3 was proceeded against exparte. Upon notice, opposite party No. 1 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written written reply raising legal objections that complaint is not maintainable as complainant is guilty of concealment of material facts because complainant herself submitted her account opening form wherein complainant in her application disclosed her name to be Anju Garg and the application for account opening form was submitted by the applicant on 11.3.2004 and on each and every column of account opening form complainant mentioned her name to be Anju Garg and even signed the same as Anju Garg and thereafter on the day she submitted declaration regarding her name wherein again her name is mentioned as Anju Garg with her signature as Anju Garg. Thereafter nomination form was also submitted by the complainant wherein again she submitted her name to be Anju Garg and now complainant is stopped from claiming that her name is wrongly mentioned by the opposite parties as Anju Garg because firstly complainant herself disclosed her name and for 14 years she continued her account in this name and now Opposite parties cannot be held liable that her name is wrongly mentioned by the Opposite parties. That present complaint is hopelessly time barred because complainant got opened her account in 2004 and from that date complainant was fully aware that account was opened in the name of Anju Garg and not in name of Anju Bala but now in year 2019 present complaint is filed on the ground that in year 2004 her account was opened in wrong name which itself shows that complaint is time barred. The complainant has no locus standi or cause of action to file the present complainant against the opposite parties. The complaint requires elaborate oral evidence as well as cross examination which can be adjudicated only through Civil Court. The complainant has concealed the material facts as such complaint is liable to be dismissed. On merits, opposite party No. 1 has reiterated its version as pleaded in legal objections and detailed above. After controverting all other averments of the complainant, the opposite party No. 1 has prayed for dismissal of complaint. In support of his complaint, the complainant has tendered into evidence her affidavit dated 13.2.2019 (Ex. C-1) and documents (Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-24). In order to rebut the evidence of complainant, the opposite party No. 1 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Mukesh Kumar dated 3-4-2019 (Ex. OP-1/1) and documents (Ex. OP-1/2 to Ex.OP-1/5). The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that opposite parties had approached the complainant to open her account with the bank and on the asking of the opposite parties, complainant had opened the account and signed account opening form as Anju Garg. The complainant signed the name as Anju Garg inspite of the fact that in all her identity documents, her name is mentioned as Anju Bala. It is further argued that opposite parties also opened demat account of the complainant with their bank in the name of Anju Bala. It is also argued that in the year 2010, opposite parties demanded PAN Card of the complainant which was supplied with the name as Anju Bala. It is further argued that complainant has received dividend of shares from the respective companies and on 11-4-2018, complainant had deposited the cheques but the opposite parties returned the cheques with the remarks “account blocked'. Inspite of the repeated visits and complaints by complainants, opposite parties had not activated the account of the complainant on account of which complainant has suffered huge financial loss, which amouns to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party No. 1 has argued that complainant had disclosed her name as Anju Garg in the account opening form on 11-3-2004 and after 14 years, complainant is disputing the fact that her name is Anju Bala and not Anju Garg and as such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and has prayed for dismissal of complaint. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and opposite party No. 1 and gone through the record. It is admitted fact that complainant is having account No. 01871000085430 with the opposite paries and also having demat account with the opposite parties. It is further admitted fact that the accounts of the complainant have been blocked by the opposite parties. To prove her case, complainant has placed on record her Identity proofs i.e. Voter Card, Adhar Card and other documents in which name of the complainant is mentioned as Anju Bala and not Anju Garg. This Commission is of the view that although the opposite parties have placed on record account opening form Ex. OP-1/1 to Ex. OP-1/4 as per which complainant has signed as Anju Garg but the opposite parties have not been able to produce any document with the account opening form submitted by complainant wherein her name is mentioned as Anju Garg. It is not the case of the opposite parties that account opening form was filled by complainant herself. Therefore, this Commission is of the opinion that a person can put his/her signatures under any name and the name of the person cannot be changed on the basis of signatures, specifically when all the identity proofs find mentioned the name of complainant as Anju Bala with complete details. Accordingly complainant has fully proved her case and there is definitely deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties of having blocked accounts of the complainant on account of which complainant has suffered huge financial loss. Accordingly, this complaint is partly allowed. The opposite parties No. 1 & 3 are directed to reactivate the saving as well as demat account of the complainant. The complainant is also held entitled to Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for mental tension, harassment, financial loss and cost of litigation. The compliance of this order be made by opposite party No. 1 & 3 within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 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 room. Announced:- 06-07-2023 - (Lalit Mohan Dogra)
President (Shivdev Singh) Member
| |
