Haryana

Ambala

CC/203/2021

Mandeep Virk - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Himanshu Kaushal

03 Mar 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

Complaint case no.	:	203/2021
Date of Institution	:	08/07/2021
Date of decision	:	03.03.2023

 

Mandeep Virk, proprietor of Mandeep Transport Company s/o Jagjiwan Pal Singh #275- C, Defence Colony, Ambala Cantt, District Ambala, Haryana.

……. Complainant

Versus

1. HDFC Bank, Nicholson Road, Ambala Cantt. - 133001 through its Authorized officer Manager/Proper Officer.
2. Reserve Bank of India, 4 Floor, Sector-17, Chandigarh through its Manager/Authorized officer/Proper Officer.

 

….…. Opposite Parties.

 Before:      Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                             Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

          Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.           

 

Present:      Shri Himanshu Kaushal, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.

                   OP No.1 already ex parte.

                   None for the OP No.2.

                  

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

1. To return/reverse the amount Rs.144721/- Or any other amount found to be deducted from the Bank A/c No. 50200032711277 of the complainant alongwith interest @18% p.a. from the respective date when the amount was deducted.
2. To pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the financial loss;
3. To stop deducting the amount in respect of the facility which was never provided.
4. To pay Rs.10,00,000/- on account of mental agony, Business loss and harassment and also to pay litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant.

Or grant any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission deems fit.

 

2.           Brief facts of this case are that the complainant is a customer of OP No.1 Bank having its’ headquarters at Mumbai. He and his father and brother are businessmen. The complainant is running his business as proprietor of M/s Mandeep Transport Company and running account in bank with the OPs in the name of Mandeep Transport Company and is in customer relation with the OP No.1. Being in good business, complainant was maintaining Cash Credit Limit, etc. which came to the knowledge of representative of OP No.1. As such, in the year 2018, the representative of OP No.1 approached and allured complainant for Cash Credit Limit, etc. takeover from Punjab National Bank, Branch District Ambala. OP No.1 assured the complainant at the time of meeting and in the process that the OP No.1 will take all the formalities from the Punjab National Bank, Branch District Ambala and there will be no issue in takeover. On 27-07-2018 OP No.1 pretended to sanction the facility of Cash credit Limit of Rs.50 Lacs to complainant by takeover from the existing accounts of complainant from Punjab National Bank Branch District Ambala. However, to the shock and utter surprise to complainant, OP No.1 Charged/debited an amount of Rs.144721/- from the bank account of complainant i.e. HDFC BANK Account No's. 50200032711277, for the purpose of Bank Charges, Processing fee, Interest and Other Misc. Charges. However, OP No.1 pretended to sanction CC limit of Rs.50,00,000/-  but the same was never granted to complainant despite deducting the processing and other charges the OPs failed to take over. Complainant approached the OPs no.1 and 2 number of times for the reversal and return of the charges which they charged without providing any facility. The father of the complainant approached Ombudsman and the OPs through emails, applications and complaints but till date the questioned amount is neither reversed nor explained as to why such deductions were made when the facilities were never provided to complainant. The OPs have not provided even proper solutions and answers to the queries of complainant till May 2021. Due to COVID-19 pandemic the OPs lingered on the matter on one pretext and on the other. Now, they showed their helplessness for the reversal of unexplained deductions for the services which were never provided to the complainant. The complainant sent legal notice on 11-06-2021 through his counsel which was duly served to the OPs but to no avail. Hence this complaint.
3.           Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of the OP No.1 before this Commission, therefore, it was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 27.10.2021.
4.           Upon notice, OP No.2 appeared and filed and raised preliminary objections to the effect that the complainant has no cause of action;  the complainant is not a consumer; this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint; only the Banking Ombudsman which is an Authority appointed under the Banking Ombudsman Scheme, 2006, enables resolution of complaints relating to certain identified services rendered by banks and facilitates the satisfaction or settlement of such complaints.; Section 58A of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, states that no suit or other legal proceeding shall lie against the Reserve Bank or any person for anything which is in good faith done or intended to be done in pursuance of the said Act or as per the Directions, notifications, regulations issued there under and no suit or other legal proceeding shall lie against the Reserve Bank or any person for any damage caused or likely to be caused by anything in good faith done or intended to be done in pursuance of the Act or any direction, notifications and regulations framed there under etc.

                   On merits, it has been stated that the Complainant, except mentioning that he and his father had approached the OPs several times, has not enclosed copy of any such complaint. The complainant is, therefore, put to strict proof of the same. The Office of the Banking Ombudsman, Chandigarh did not receive any complaint from the Complainant, either physically or in the CMS portal. A large number of depositors/borrowers of various banking institutions have filed complaints all over the country before various Consumer Commissions/Commissions unnecessarily impleading the RBI/Banking Ombudsman as a party. Deputing its officers to various parts of the country in such matters will cause considerable loss of public money eventually causing inconveniences and difficulties.  Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by OP No.2 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with costs.

5.           Learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of the complainant as Annexure CA alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-15 and closed the evidence on his behalf. On the other hand, learned counsel for OP No.2 tendered affidavit of Sh.R.L.Korotania, Authorized Representative, Office of Ombudsman, Reserve Bank of India, Chandigarh as Annexure OP-2/A alongwith documents Annexure OP-2/1 to OP-2/3 and closed evidence on behalf of OP No.2.
6.           On the date of arguments, learned counsel for the complainant only, put in appearance. Accordingly, this Commission heard learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the entire record of this case and reserved the same.
7.           Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that by neither taking over the account of the complainant from the Punjab National Bank nor refunding the amount received towards the said facilities, OP No.1 is deficient in providing service and adopted unfair trade practice.
8.            The first and foremost question which falls for consideration before this Commission is, as to whether, the complainant falls under the definition of consumer or not. It may be stated here that from perusal of emails dated 16.05.2019 to 30.09.2020, Annexure C-4 to C-9 colly., clearly proves that OP No.1 had committed to provide the service by taking over the credit facilities from the account of the complainant maintained with the Punjab National Bank, which allegedly has not been provided by OP No.1. Thus, under these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the services availed by the complainant from OP No.1 attracts the provisions of Consumer Protection Act in view of ratio of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arun Bhatiya v. HDFC Bank and Others, August 8, 2022. Civil Appeal Nos. 5204-5205 of 2022 wherein it was held that “A person who avails of any service from a bank will fall under the purview of the definition of a ‘consumer’ and it would be open to such a consumer to seek recourse to the remedies provided under the Consumer Protection Act.”  In this case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has made it clear that it is any service from a bank, which will fall under the purview of definition of a consumer.  Under these circumstances, plea taken by OP No.2 to the effect that the complainant did not fall within the definition of consumer or that only Banking Ombudsman has power to adjudicate this complaint stands rejected.
9.           Now coming to the merits of this case, it may be stated here that the fact that OP No.1 had debited amount Rs.144721/- from the bank account of complainant qua takeover of CC and BG Limit from Punjab National Bank, goes unrebutted as OP No.1 prefered not to contest the complaint as nobody appeared on its behalf despite service, as a result of which, it was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 27.10.2021. The complainant by placing on record statement of account dated 31.07.2018, Annexure C-1 has proved that OP No.1 on various occasions had debited the aforesaid amount of Rs.144721/-  under the garb of interest, processing fee etc. after sanctioning of credit facilities but ultimately it failed to take over the account from the PNB. It is also the definite case of the complainant that since OP No.1 failed to take over the mandate of credit facilities from the PNB as such, the complainant could not obtain the facility of bank guarantee limit. Thus, there is nothing on record that after receiving the aforesaid amount of Rs.144721/- in the manner stated above, the account of the complainant was taken over by OP No.1 from PNB. There is also nothing on record that the said amount of Rs.144721/- which stood debited by OP No.1 as processing charges, interest etc. for takeover of his account from Punjab National Bank, stood refunded to the complainant. 
10.            It is therefore held that by not refunding the amount of Rs.144721/- which stood debited by OP No.1, in the absence of takeover of account of the complainant from PNB, amounts to deficiency in service. The complainant is thus entitled to get refund of the entire amount received by OP No.1. Apart from it, the complainant is also required to be compensated for agony and harassment and also financial loss suffered by him. As stated above, all the allegations levelled by the complainant against OP No.1 have gone unrebutted, as it failed to put in appearance despite service and as such, presumption can easily be drawn against OP No.1 that it has nothing to say against the allegations levelled by the complainant.
11.           Since no deficiency in service has been proved against OP No.2 nor any privity of contract has been established between the complainant and OP No.2, as such, the complaint filed by the complainant is liable to be dismissed.
12.           In view of the aforesaid discussion, we dismiss the present complaint against OP No.2 and allow the same against OP No.1 and direct it in the following manner:-
    1. To refund the amount of Rs.144721/-, or any other amount, received/debited by it towards processing/interest etc. qua takeover of account of the complainant from Punjab National Bank, alongwith interest @4% p.a. from the respective date(s) of receiving/debt.
    2. To stop debiting any amount in future from the account of the complainant.
    3. To pay Rs.5000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant and Rs.3000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.

The OP No.1 is further directed to comply with the aforesaid directions within the period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order failing which the awarded amounts shall entail interest @6% p.a. from the date of default till realization. Certified copy of the order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

 

 Announced:- 03.03.2023

 

(Vinod Kumar Sharma)	(Ruby Sharma)	(Neena Sandhu)
Member	Member	President