BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.160 of 2015

Date of Instt. 17.04.2015

Date of Decision: 19.03.2019

Dr. Pritpal Singh, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital Nakodar District Jalandhar, resident of 219-C, Rajguru Nagar, Ludhiana.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. HDFC Bank, Nakodar Branch, through its Branch Manager, Nakodar Jalandhar.

2. The Blue Dart Courier Service, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana through its Prop., Owner, Authorized Manager.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)

Smt. Jyotsna (Member)

Present: Sh. Munish Tiwari, Adv & A. K. Rattu, Adv Counsels for the Complainant.

OP No.1 exparte.

Sh. Dinesh Sahni, Adv Counsel for the OP No.2.

Order

Karnail Singh (President)

1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that he is a consumer of the OP No.1 under the Consumer Protection Act, as he availed the services from OP No.1.

2. That the complainant is serving as a medical officer, in Civil Hospital, Nakodar since 2007 and availed the facility of salary bank account No.13701000009489 with HDFC Bank, Nakodar and for his convenience, in the year 2011, complainant also applied for ATM Card and facility through his bank. Thereafter, the complainant did not get his ATM Card from OP No.1, but subsequently complainant came to know that amount of about Rs.40,800/- has been withdrawn from his above said account on different times. On enquiry, the OP No.1 represented to the complainant that amount has been withdrawn from complainant's account by using the ATM Card, which was allegedly sent to complainant. On this representation of OP No.1, the complainant got stunned as he had never received any ATM Card or Pin Code of the said ATM allegedly sent by OP No.1. When complainant told OP No.1 that he has never received any ATM card or its pin code, then OP No.1 represented that ATM Card and its pin code have been sent to the complainant through Blue Dart Company Courier Service i.e. OP No.2. The complainant immediately on 10.03.2011 moved one application to the Manager of HDFC Branch, Nakodar for stoppage of any kind of transaction through said ATM Card and for stopping the further misuse of said ATM Card. The complainant had also registered his complaint to SHO, Police Station Nakodar regarding the above said withdrawal of amount from his account by way of fraud. That complainant many times approached branch manager of HDFC Bank, Nakodar to go through the matter and to fill up the financial damages suffered by the complainant, but OP No.1 washed its hands towards its responsibility and did not give any satisfactory response. The officials/employees of OP No.1 or OP No.2 instead of handing over the ATM Card to the complainant, and in connivance with each other have withdrawn the amount of complainant from his salary account by misusing the ATM Card and its Pin Code. Till date, the complainant has not received his ATM Card and its Pin Code belongs to his above stated salary account from OP No.1 or from OP No.2. When the complainant was not given any satisfactory reply and response by OPs, then complainant served legal notice to OP No.1 and OP No.2, but they did not bother and accordingly, due to financial loss caused to the complainant as well as mental tension and harassment, the complainant filed a consumer complaint at District Forum, Ludhiana, wherein OP No.1 had suffered a statement that courier receipt is not available with the OP No.1 and further gave undertaking to produce the copy of the same to the complainant well within time and accordingly, the said complaint was withdrawn and even thereafter, the complainant again filed a consumer complaint in District Forum, Ludhiana, but the same was again withdrawn being having some technical defect and thereafter, the complainant was not satisfied from OP No.1 and accordingly, the instant complaint filed with the prayer that the OPs be kindly directed to pay Rs.90,000/- by way of compensation on account of mental harassment, agony, financial loss suffered by the complainant at the hands of the OPs No.1 and 2 and be also directed to handover the ATM and its Pin Code to the complainant.

3. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, but despite service OP No.1 failed to appear and ultimately, OP No.1 was proceeded against exparte, whereas OP No.2 appeared through its counsel and filed written reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed and further averred that the complainant has no locus-standi to file the present complaint against the answering OP No.2. It is further alleged that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint and further alleged that the complainant is not a consumer as per Consumer Protection Act qua answering OP No.2 and further alleged that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint because the complainant had earlier also filed the complaint at Ludhiana invoking the jurisdiction of Ludhiana Forum and hence, this complaint is liable to be dismissed. On merits, the averments made in the complaint are categorically controverted and denied by the OP No.2 and lastly prayed that the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same may be dismissed.

4. In order to prove the case of the complainant, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.CA along with some documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-9 and closed the evidence.

5. Similarly, counsel for the OP No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OP1/A along with document Ex.OP2/A i.e. Authority Letter and further tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OP3/A along with document Ex.OP4/A and closed the evidence.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also gone through the case file very minutely.

7. After hearing the argument and from scrutiny of the case file, the complainant himself alleged in Para No.1 that he is a consumer of OP No.1 under the Consumer Protection Act, if so, then why the instant complaint has been filed also against OP No.2, when the complainant is not the consumer of the OP No.2. The version of the complainant is virtually true because there is no role of the OP No.2 directly with the complainant because if the ATM Card was sent by OP No.1 through Courier of OP No.2, to the complainant, then there is an interse contract between the OP No.1 and OP No.2 and there is no involvement of the OP No.2 regarding that. Even there is no receipt of the courier produced on the file either by the complainant or OP No.1. So, with these observations, we are of the opinion that the complaint of the complainant qua OP No.2 is not maintainable and thus, the complaint of the complainant qua OP No.2 is dismissed.

8. So for the claim of the complainant qua the OP No.1/HDFC Bank is related, same is admitted from the documents i.e. statement of account of the bank of the OP No.1, Ex.C-1 itself shows that some amount had been withdrawn from the account of the complainant through ATM, if so, then it is the duty of the OP No.1 to come present and prove on the file that ATM Card was issued to the complainant and handed over to the complainant or not, but for the best known reason, the OP No.1 did not appear in this complaint and further the counsel for the OP No.1 suffered a statement in the District Forum, Ludhiana and copy of the same is available on the file as Ex.C-8, wherein categorically undertook that the ATM Card along with PIN Code will be supplied to the complainant very shortly, but the OP No.1 through its counsel undertook to handover the ATM Card along with PIN Code, but the same has till today not handed over to the complainant. So, from the copy of the order of District Forum, Ludhiana, it is established that there is a deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.1/HDFC Bank and thus, the complaint of the complainant is partly accepted and OP No.1 is directed to handover the ATM Card along with its PIN Code to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order and further OP No.1 is directed to pay compensation to the complainant for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant, to the tune of Rs.20,000/- and further, OP No.1 is directed to pay litigation expenses of Rs.5000/-. The entire compliance be made within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

9. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated Jyotsna Karnail Singh

19.03.2019 Member President