View 5452 Cases Against HDFC Bank
View 5452 Cases Against HDFC Bank
Jagsir Singh filed a consumer case on 24 Jul 2017 against HDFC Bank in the Sangrur Consumer Court. The case no is CC/130/2017 and the judgment uploaded on 27 Jul 2017.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR
Complaint no. 130
Instituted on: 03.04.2017
Decided on: 24.07.2017
Jagsir Singh son of Jeet Singh resident of Village Babbanpur Tehsil Dhuri, District Sangrur.
…. Complainant.
Versus
HDFC Bank Branch Ward No.16, New Mandi Road, Dhuri, through its Branch Manager, Dhuri, Tehsil Dhuri, District Sangrur.
....Opposite party.
FOR THE COMPLAINANT: Shri Parmod Saxena Advocate
FOR THE OPP. PARTYS : Shri S.S.Punia, Advocate
Quorum
Sukhpal Singh Gill, President
Sarita Garg, Member
Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member
ORDER:
Sukhpal Singh Gill, President
1. Jagsir Singh complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite party (referred to as OP in short) on the ground that he is having account number 14801000028170 with OP and he deposited Rs.50,000/- as Fix Deposit in the OP bank on 13.01.2012 for three years. In the month of April 2015 when the complainant approached the OP to release the maturity amount of the FD then OP told that said amount was deposited in the Insurance policy. The complainant requested the Op to shift his amount in FD. The complainant again approached the OP in the month of January 2017 but the OP totally refused to do so. Till today the complainant did not receive any policy from the OP. Thus, alleging unfair trade practice on the part of OP, the complainant has sought following reliefs:-
i) OP be directed to refund the amount of Rs.50,000/- alongwith interest @18% per annum
ii) OP be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.11000/- on account of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice,
iii) OP be directed to pay Rs.20000/- as litigation expenses.
2. In reply filed by the Ops, preliminary objections on the grounds of maintainability, jurisdiction, locus standi, limitation and non-joinder of necessary party have been taken up. On merits, it is denied that complainant deposited Rs.50,000/- as fixed deposit on 13.01.2012 for three years. It is also wrong that in the month of April 2015 the complainant asked the OP about the maturity of the FD. It is denied that the OP deposited Rs.50,000/- in the insurance policy. It is submitted that the complainant deposited Rs.20,000/- on 13.01.2012 and got issued a DD payable at Ludhiana for an amount of Rs.50,000/- same day. The OP has no relation with insurance service. The complainant has not disclosed the name of the insurance policy. Thus, there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP.
3. The complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-4 and closed evidence. On the other hand, OP has tendered an affidavit Ex.OP-1 and closed evidence.
4. From the perusal of the entire record on the file we find that it is specific case of the complainant that he deposited Rs.50,000/- as Fix Deposit in the bank of the OP on 13.01.2012 for three years but later on after seeing his bank account statement he came to know that the OP deposited his amount of Rs.50,000/- in the insurance policy. Then he requested the OP in the month of January 2017 to shift the amount in the FDR but the OP totally refused to do so. On the other hand, the OP has stated that the complainant has deposited Rs.20,000/- on 13.01.2012 and got issued a DD payable at Ludhiana for Rs.50,000/- on same day and the OP has no relation with the insurance service. It has been alleged that the complainant has not disclosed the name of the insurance policy.
5. The complainant has produced on record his bank account statement Ex.C-4 wherein it has been mentioned that the complainant deposited only an amount of Rs.20,000/- 13.01.2012 and got issued a demand draft of Rs.50,000/- payable at Ludhiana from the OP. Surprisingly, the complainant has stated in the complaint that he deposited Rs.50,000/- on 13.01.2012 as fixed deposit in the OP bank. Further, the complainant has not produced on record copy of any FDR rather it is the case of the complainant that after April 2015 he came to know that the OP has deposited his amount in the insurance policy. It is matter of common knowledge that when anyone deposited any amount in the shape of FDR then a copy of the FDR is issued immediately to him/her by the bank and in the case of the complainant if no FDR was issued to him he should had immediately approached the bank or higher authority of the bank but the complainant did not do so. Moreover, he has not produced on record any document which could show that he had taken any step against the OP for not issuing the copy of the FDR rather his case is that after three years it came into his knowledge that the OP has deposited his amount in the insurance policy instead of FDR which is not acceptable to us. Moreover, the complainant has not disclosed the name of the insurance company nor produced on record copy of any insurance policy which also falsifies the case of the complainant.
6. From the facts stated above, we find that the complainant has filed a frivolous and vague complaint which is not based on the real facts. As such, the present complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.
Announced
July 24, 2017
( Vinod Kumar Gulati ) ( Sarita Garg) (Sukhpal Singh Gill) Member Member President
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.