Delhi

StateCommission

FA/12/1187

K.K.AGGARWAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC BANK - Opp.Party(s)

ANSHU MAHAJAN

05 Sep 2016

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

                                                             Date of Decision:05.09.2016

First Appeal No. 1187/2012

(Arising out of the order dated 01.11.2012 passed in Complaint Case No. 87/2008 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum VII, Local Shopping Complex Shiekh Sarai, New Delhi-110017)

In the matter of:

Krishna Kumar Agarwal

Karta of Krishna Kumar Agarwal (HUF)

R/-A-11, First Floor

Chittaranjan Park

New Delhi-110019                                                     .........Appellant

 

Versus

 

1. HDFC Bank Ltd.

HDFC Bank House

B-54 A

Greater Kailash-I

New Delhi-110048

 

2. HDFC Bank Ltd.

E-6, Masjid Moth

Greater Kailash-2

•  
•  

 

Also at:

 

Shop # M-29

M Block Market

Greater Kailash-2

•  
•  

 

3. Mr. Aditya Puri

Managing Director

HDFC Bank

HDFC Bank House

Senapti Bapat Marg

Lower Parel

Mumbai 400013                                          ..........Respondents

                                                                  

CORAM

 

N P KAUSHIK                         -                  Member (Judicial)

1.         Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                   Yes

2.         To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                  Yes

 

N P KAUSHIK – MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

 

JUDGEMENT

1.         Present appeal is directed against the orders01.11.2004 passed by the Ld. District Forum Sheikh Sarai Delhi. Vide impugned orders Ld. District Forum directed HDFC Bank B-54 A, Greater Kailash-I New Delhi-110048 (in short the ‘OP’) to pay to the complainant (appellant herein) an amount of Rs. 50,000/- towards compensation for harassment and mental agony. Costs of litigation of Rs. 10,000/- were also awarded.
2.         Present appeal has been filed by the complainant/appellant for enhancement of the amount of compensation and litigation charges.
3.         Facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant was a holder of Imperia Saving Bank Account alongwith Demat Account with the OP. Saving bank account of the complainant was converted into Imperia account. OP vide its letter dated 30.09.2007 called upon the complainant to close the account and open a new account for the reason that the Demat account could not be opened with the suffix, “AND SONS/ HUF”. The directions were issued in view of the NSDL guidelines.Complainant completed all the formalities. He was informed that his second application dated 15.12.2007 was rejected for want of signatures of the co-parcener. Grievance of the complainant was that due to this delay on the part of the OP bank, he failed to operate his Demat account from 01.10.2007 uptil February 2008 when the account was activated. Contention of the complainant was that there wasa tremendous growth of share market and he was deprived of the profits.
4.         Defence raised by the OP was that as per guidelines of NSDL (National Securities and Depository Ltd.) Demat account could not be opened with the suffix “AND SONS/HUF”. Complainant gave the application in the last week of October, in response to the bankers letters dated 20.09.2007. The said application submitted by the complainant did not bear the stamp of HUF. After obtaining the stamp, the form was resubmitted in November 2007. It was rejected for two contradictory statements made by the complainant. A fresh form was filled up on 16.11.2007. It did not bear the signatures of the co-parcener. After obtaining the signatures of the co-parcener, formalities were completed on 16.12.2007. It was only at that stage that the demat account could be activated.
5.         Ld. District Forum observed that the OP bank had taken up undue time in completion of the formalities and opening a new demat account. For this reason, Ld. trial forum awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- and costs of litigation of Rs. 10,000/- in favour of the complainant.
6.         Present appeal has been filed with a prayer of enhancement of quantum of compensation. Grounds for enhancement are that the delay in processing the application of the complainant was solely on the part of the OP bank.
7.         I have heard the arguments addressed by the counsel for the appellant Sh. Anshu Mahajan Advocate and Counsel for the respondent Ms. Pallavi Deepika Advocate at length.
8.         Ld. Counsel for the Respondent has placed reliance upon the case of the Vijay Kumar v. Indusind Bank, II (2012) CPJ 181 (NC) and the case of Anit Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. HDFC Bank Ltd. decided by the Hon’ble National Commission in Original Petition No. 306/2000 on 01.11.2013. The case of Vijay Kumar (Supra) has been noticed in the case of Anit Properties Pvt. Ltd. (Supra). The Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Ganapati Parmeshwas Kashi v. Bank of India & Anr., First Appeal No. 362 of 2011, decided on 21.08.2012 held that the holders of a Demat account do not come within the purview of the definition of ‘consumer’. SLP Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) 22967 of 2012 filed before the Hon’ble Apex Court was dismissed on 14.01.2013. The relevant portion is reproduced below:

“(ii) the concurrent finding recorded by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission that the petitioners cannot be treated as ‘consumer’, within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is based on analysis of the pleadings filed by the parties. The DMAT account was opened by the petitioners purely for commercial transactions. Therefore, they were rightly not treated as ‘consumer’ so as to entitle them to claim compensation by filing complaint under the 1986 Act.”

 

9.         Apex Court in the case of CMD, ONGC & Anr. v. Gurbir Singh Anand & Anr. in SLP (Civil) Nos. 8529-8540 held that the DMAT accounts for purely commercial transactions and account holders cannot be termed as ‘consumers’.
10. Ld. District Forum fell in grave error in allowing the complaint when the same was not maintainable in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble National Commission. The complaint filed by Sh. K.K.Aggarwal is, therefore, dismissed. Consequently the present appeal is also dismissed.
11. Copy of the orders be made available to the parties free of cost as per rules and thereafter the file be consigned to Records.
12.  FDR, if any, deposited by the appellant be released as per rules.

(N P KAUSHIK)
MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

6.