Punjab

Nawanshahr

CC/119/2015

Balwant Singh Bhatti - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Navneet Sareen

07 Aug 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SHAHEED BHAGAT SINGH NAGAR. 

 

Consumer Complaint No    :   119 of 21.10.2015 

Date of Decision              :    07.08.2017      

 

Balwant Singh Bhatti s/o Shri Kashmira Singh, resident of Village Kamam, Tehsil Nawanshahr, District S.B.S Nagar, presently resident of 61, Seconadale RD, 52257 – RR 231, Shewood PK, ABTA Canada 78-B-1K3.

                                                              ….Complainant

Versus

1.        HDFC Bank, Banga Road, Nawanshahr through its Branch Manager, Nawanshahr, District SBS Nagar.

2.       HDFC Standard Life, SL Nawanshahr Branch, 2^nd Floor, Right Portion, Banga Road, Near PSEB Godown, Nawanshahr through its  Manager.

 ….Opposite parties

Complaint under the Provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM:         

S.KARNAIL SINGH, PRESIDENT

S.KANWALJEET SINGH, MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES

For Complainant  :         Sh.Navneet Sareen, Advocate

For OP no.1                   :         Sh.S.K Dewan, Advocate

For OP no.2                   :         Sh. Pushpinder Kataria, Advocate

ORDER 

PER S.KANWALJEET SINGH, PRESIDENT

1. The present complaint has been filed by Balwant Singh Bhatti -complainant, wherein it is alleged that he had saving bank account bearing no. 02661010002769. The complainant informed by co-villagers in Canada that some documents had been received in village Kamam in the name of the complainant sent by OP no.2 and the complainant received the said documents in Canada. The complainant had shocked to learn that the same purported to be one policy no. 14404828 branded as HDFC Personal Pension Plan Regular Premium Policy and deduction of Rs.2 lakh had been made by the OPs from the saving bank account of the complainant. The said policy purported to be effective from 21.05.2011. The complainant also noticed that OPs have forged the signatures of the complainant. The date of birth of the complainant shown in the said policy papers as 4^th April, 1965, whereas the date of the birth of the complainant is 4^th April, 1945 and one other policy no.13752310 which took the complainant had never purchased. Not only the sum of Rs.2 lakh was illegally diverted to the policy bearing no. 13752310 in June, 2010 but in the next year in 2011 another deduction of Rs. 2 lakh was made by the OPs from the above said bank account of the complainant. The complainant further alleged that OPs had illegally diverted six lakh rupees belonging to the complainant to some bogus policies.
2. The complainant also served a legal notice dated 25.05.2012 to the OPs regarding committing forgery and fabrication of valuable documents, which apparently had the sanction of the senior officials of the OPs. The complainant had threatened to expose the OPs by approaching the police authorities and the Consumer Forum. Then the OPs had promised to cancel the illegal policies. The OPs put up one more condition of submitting the original policies for processing the demand for cancellation of policies. The complainant received a message from the OPs that the originally withdrawn money had been deposited in the Yes Bank  account of the complainant.  The complainant also alleged that OPs not paid the interest to the complainant on the money illegally withdrawn from his bank account. In this way, the OPs amounts to deficiency in service for which complainant has entitled for relief claim and as such instant complaint has been filed with prayer that OPs are liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum to the complainant from the date of illegal withdrawals till the date of reimbursement. The complainant further prayed that Rs.10 lac be paid to him for four trips from Canada to India and OPs are also liable to pay Rs.5 lac for loss of his business and Rs.20 lac (in total) as compensation on account of mental and physical harassment faced by him.             
3. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs and accordingly OPs appeared through their counsel and filed their separate written reply. OP no.1 taking preliminary objections that instant complaint is not maintainable. This Forum has no territorial jurisdiction. The complaint is barred by limitation. The bank is sending quarterly statement to the complainant. On merits, OPs averred that investment in both the policies are well within the knowledge of the complainant. Rest of the averments have been denied by OP no.1 and it prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. OP no.2 appeared and filed its separate written reply by taking preliminary objections that OP no.2 has not committed any deficiency qua the complainant. The present complaint is not maintainable in the eyes of law, therefore, no case is made out against the answering OP under the provision of the Act. Mis-selling of the insurance product to the complainant are absolutely wrong and denied. The complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands. The insurance policy is the evidence of the term of the agreement between the parties. On merits, it was averred that insurance policies were issued to the complainant clearly on the basis of the proposal form submitted by the complainant under his signatures. It was denied by OP no.2 that the complainant approached to the answering OP for obtaining the FDR particularly when the answering OP is an insurance company. However, as far as diverting of the amount of saving bank account towards payment of the policy premium, the reply to be submitted by OP no.1. It is  totally denied the complainant did not purchase any of the insurance policy from OP no.2. The OP no.2 did not commit any wrong with the complainant as alleged. As per request of the complainant, insurance policies were cancelled and amount of premium already remitted to the complainant’s bank. However, the complainant is not entitled any interest as alleged nor there is any contract between the parties  to pay any interest. The amount of premium deposited by the complainant has already refunded to him, the policy stands cancelled, therefore, question of payment of any interest on the said amount does not arise. Rest of the averments have been denied by OP no.2 and it prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5.  In order to prove the complaint, the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-9 and closed the evidence. 
6. Similarly, counsel for the OP no.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Puneet Joshi, Assistant Branch Manager HDFC Bank Nawanshahr Ex.OP-1. OP no.2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. Amit Khanna, Associate Manger (Legal), HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd Ex.OP-2/A along with copies of documents Ex.OP-2/1 to Ex.OP-2/19  and closed the evidence.
7. We have heard counsel for the parties and also gone through complaint file alongwith documents very minutely.
8.  In para no.7 of the complaint, the complainant himself admitted that he had received a message from the OPs the originally withdrawn money had been deposited in the Yes Bank account of the complainant. Only major issue reveals with the interest of amount of the complainant as claimed for is entitled or not? It is not only duty of the Forum to provide justice but justice seems to be seen. Only one document of the complainant is Ex.C-7 addressed to HDFC Life, which is without date. How, can this Forum presume that complainant especially visit to India for this purpose since 2011 to 2015? No other corroborative evidence on record to show that the complainant especially visited India to that effect.  As per para no.4 of the written version filed by OP no.2 specially mentioned that complainant is not entitled to any interest as alleged, moreover, OP no.2 did not produce any terms and conditions of the policy contract on the record, in which it shows that OPs are not liable to pay any interest on the amount to the complainant.
9. From the above discussion, it has become clear that the OP no.2 has already disburse the amount of the disputed insurance policy in the account of the complainant, whereby the OP no.2 has admitted the deficiency of service and due to that reason the OP no.2 has disbursed the amount in the account of the complainant and therefore complainant is entitled for the interest of the amount retained by OP no.2 illegally and unauthorizedly for such a long time.
10. In view of our above discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed to the extent that OP no.2 is directed to pay interest @ 9%  w.e.f. 21.05.2011 to 11.08.2015 regarding policy no. 14404828 of Rs.2 lakh and policy no. 13752310, the interest @ 9% p.a from June 2011 to 11.08.2015 of Rs.2 lakh and another amount of Rs.2 lakh deducted in 2011 as per pleading of the complainant in para no.3 of the complaint. (The exact date not mentioned by both the parties) only mention in June, 2011.  So, OP no.2 is directed to pay the interest @ 9% p.a from June, 2011 to 11.08.2015. The entire interest on the above said amounts to be paid by OP no.2 to complainant. The compliance of the order be made within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
11.  Complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
12. Copies of the order be sent to the parties, as permissible, under the rules.

Dated : 07.08.2017                                                      

                                       

(Kanwaljeet Singh)                (Karnail Singh)

   Member                                 President