Haryana

Karnal

CC/693/2022

Aryan Travels - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Balkar Singh Sandhu

21 Nov 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

                                                      Complaint No. 693 of 2022

                                                      Date of instt.07.12.2022

                                                      Date of Decision:21.11.2023

 

Aryan Travels, shop no.2, Nai Subzi Mandi, Karnal through its  partner Shri Prem Parkash Arya son of Shri Kamla Ram, resident of house no.599, Karam Singh Colony, near Bank Colony, Karnal.

 

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

H.D.F.C. Bank 0195 branch Kunjpura Road, Karnal through its Branch Manager.

 

…..Opposite Party.

       

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

 

Before   Shri Jaswant Singh……President.

              Shri Vineet Kaushik…….Member

              Dr. Suman Singh……Member

 

Argued by:  Shri B.S. Sandhu, counsel for the complainant.

                    Shri Narender Kumar, counsel for the OP.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh, President)

ORDER:                     

          

                 The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’) on the averments that complainant’s firm has been maintaining a current account no.01952000019871 with the OP since 2007. On 14.10.2022 Shri Prem Parkash Arya went to the bank of OP in order to withdraw the cash, the official of the OP informed the complainant that the abovesaid account has been freeze/hold. Complainant enquired about the matter then he came to know someone has made complaint to freeze the account of complainant’s firm in connection with FIR no.36 dated 13.10.2021 under sections 409, 420, 120-B IPC and sections 3,4, 5 of CGNS Act at P.S. GRP, Raipur. Moreover, in the letter dated 13.10.2022, the cutting has been made over account number and the number of the complainant has been mentioned and this fact was also ignored by the bank before blocking the account. Shri Prem Parkash told the OP that his firm has no concern with the branch of HDFC Bank Ltd. at Raipur, Chhatisgarh or abovesaid FIR and requested the official of the OP to make the account of the complainant firm operational. Complainant’s firm made many requests to OP to unblock the account but instead of redressing the grievance of complainant, OP asked the complainant’s firm to obtain NOC from Raipur Police Authority to remove the debit freeze. It is further alleged that OP neither informed the complainant before freezing of the account in question nor gave any opportunity of hearing. Due to freezing of the account of Rs.15,41,475/- of the complainant’s firm for more than one month, great hardship and inconvenience are being caused to the complainant’s firm. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OP appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; jurisdiction and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that complainant’s firm is having current bank account no.01952000019871 with the OP. The said account is used for commercial activities and as such complaint before this Commission is not maintainable at any point. Further, the complaint has been filed without the consent/resolution of other partners and as such not maintainable. As per notice dated 13.10.2022, bearing memo no.2432/2022 under section 91 code of Criminal Procedure delivered/received/served upon the branch situated at Devender Nagar Raipur, Chattisgarh from SHO GRP Police Station (Chattisgarh) in connection to offence bearing no.36/2021 under section 420,409,120B IPC and section 3,4,5 of chit money and section 10 of CGNS Act lodged by complainant Jagdish Sonwani to the effect that accused Shemsher Singh has fraudulently transferred money to account numbers 13601930009377, 01952000010871 and 17161050000743 maintained with HDFC Bank Limited. As such bank was instructed/directed to hold the aforementioned accounts till further orders. Further, complainant was requested to arrange NOC from Police, if he wants to operate its account but complainant failed to submit the NOC from police as such its account is still freeze/hold. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

4.             Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of registration of rim Aryan Travels Ex.C2, copy of partners registration of firm Ex.C3, copy of the bank statement dated 10.12.2022 Ex.C4, copy of email dated 23.11.2022 by complainant’s firm to OP regarding unblocking of account Ex.C5, copy of receipt dated 10.05.2018 Ex.C6, copy of transaction deposited detail Ex.C7 and closed the evidence on 03.04.2023 by suffering separate statement.

5.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP has tendered into evidence affidavit of Geeta working as Branch Operation Manager Ex.OP1/A, copy of notice dated 13.10.2022 Ex. OP1, copy of letter dated 28.11.2022 by bank to complainant’s from regarding deposit of NOC from Raipur Police Authority Ex.OP2, copy of relationship form dated 30.10.2006 Ex.OP3 and closed the evidence on 07.07.2023 by suffering separate statement.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

7.             Learned counsel for complainants, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant’s firm has been maintaining a current account with the OP. The account of the complainant’s firm has been freeze by the OP without any intimation to the complainant. When the complainant enquired about the freezing of the account then he came to that the account of complainant’s firm has been freeze in connection with FIR no.36 dated 13.10.2021 at P.S. GRP, Raipur whereas the complainant’s firm has no concern with the branch of HDFC Bank Ltd. at Raipur, Chhatisgarh. Complainant made many requests to OP to unblock the account but instead of unblocking the account, OP demanded the NOC from Raipur Police Station Due to freezing of the account complainant faced great hardship and inconvenience and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

8.             Per contra, learned counsel for the OP, while reiterating the contents of written version has vehemently argued that complainant’s firm is having current bank account with the OP. The said account is used for commercial activities, so the present complaint is not maintainable before this Commission. He further argued that as per notice dated 13.10.2022 under section 91 code of Criminal Procedure served upon the branch situated at Devender Nagar Raipur, Chattisgarh from SHO GRP Police Station (Chattisgarh) lodged by complainant Jagdish Sonwani to the effect that accused Shemsher Singh has fraudulently transferred money to account numbers 13601930009377, 01952000010871 and 17161050000743 maintained with HDFC Bank Limited. As such bank was directed to hold the aforementioned accounts till further orders. Complainant was requested to arrange the NOC from Police, if he wants to operate its account but complainant failed to submit the NOC from police as such its account is still freeze and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

9.             We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

10.           Admittedly, complainant’s firm has been maintaining a current account no.01952000019871 with the OP bank. It is also admitted that the said account has been freeze by the OP bank.

11.           Before going through the merits of the case, firstly we decide whether the complainant’s firm falls under the ambit of consumer or defined under section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 or not?

12.           The definition of consumer is defined in Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, reproduced as under:-

(7) “Consumer” means any person who-

(i)     buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promise or partly paid and partly promises, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose.” or

(ii)    hires or avails of  any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who(hires or avails of) the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purposes.

Explanation- For the purposes of this clause-

(a)    the expression “commercial purpose” does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self employment.”

(b)    the expressions “buys any goods” and “hires or avails any services” include offline or online transactions through electronic means or by teleshopping or direct selling or multi-level marketing;

13.           The onus to prove that the account of the complainant’s firm was not being for commercial purpose was relied upon the complainant but complainant has miserably failed to prove the same by leading any cogent and convincing evidence. The account of complainant’s firm is a current account. The complainant’s firm is doing the business of tour and travel i.e. money transfer i.e. western union, Air tickets etc. The current account is usually used for commercial activities. It is not a case of the complainant’s firm that the complainant’s firm has no other source of income. It has been proved from the business of the complainant’s firm that the work of the complainant’s firm is for commercial purpose not for earning his livelihood by means of self employment. Thus, the account was being used by complainant for commercial purpose and thus in view of section 2(7)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint. Moreover, complainant has mentioned in his complaint that his firm is a partnership firm but he has not impleaded his partner as a party in his complaint. Furthermore, the account of the complainant’s firm has been freeze on the instance of Police Station, Raipur and HDFC Bank Limited, Raipur Chattisgarh but complainant has not impleaded said Bank and Police Station as a party in the present complaint.

14.           Thus, in view of the above discussion, the present complaint is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed and the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Dated: 21.11.2023.                                                                 

                                                                  President,

                                                       District Consumer Disputes

                                                       Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

                (Vineet Kaushik)        (Dr. Suman Singh)

                     Member                        Member