BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

1.    Mohinderjit Singh Sethi, Senior Advocate.

2.    Dr.Prof. Rajmohini Sethi.

Both Residents of H.No.155, Sector 9-B, Chandigarh

…..Complainants

                                      V E R S U S

1.    HDFC Bank through its Managing Director, Block No.8, 1st Floor, Ambika Mills, Mumbai-400072.

2.    The Branch Manager, HDFC Bank, SCO No.61-63, Sector 9-D, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.

                                  ……Opposite Parties

CORAM:     SH.P.D.GOEL                                     PRESIDENT

                   SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL                  MEMBER

                   DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA         MEMBER

Argued by:    Sh.B.J.Singh, Counsel for the Complainants.

                        Sh.R.S.Bhatia, Counsel for the OPs.

PER DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA, MEMBER

              Briefly stated, the complainants planned a holiday trip to Thailand & Singapore w.e.f. 5.10.2008 and as such, requested OP No.2 for issuance of a credit card, whereupon they were told that it would take 2/3 weeks times. However, the Bank can issue a debit card for that purpose, so, the complainants opened a new joint account with a deposit of Rs.1,50,000/-.  The bank issued a debit card to the complainants against the said account.

              It is stated that on 4^th October, before leaving Chandigarh, the complainant was assured by the Bank that the debit card is fully operational and the complainants will have no difficulty about the availability of the said amount abroad during their holidays. It is further stated that on reaching Bangkok, the complainants had to pay some amount for the shopping, as such offered the said debit card, but the transaction could not take place as the Card was non-operational. Thereafter, son of the complainant contacted the Manager of OP Bank, who told that some minor discrepancy in the date of birth of Mrs.Sethi was there, which has been rectified and the debit card will now be operational. The complainants reached Thailand on 6.10.2008 and remained there till 10.10.2008. Thereafter, they boarded the plane for Singapore. At Singapore, again the complainants tried to operate the debit card, but still it was not operational. The complainants wanted to go back immediately but they could not manage as their confirmed seats were booked for 16.10.2008; more so, without funds, they could not go to any hotel. Under these circumstances, the son of the complainants requested one of his friends to help them. On 16.10.2008 the complainants went to the airport for their back journey but the plane did not arrive and the local management asked them to stay for a day more and flight will be available on 17.10.2008. After prolonged entreaties, the complainants were transferred to Singapore Airlines and then reached New Delhi at 11.45 PM. It has been further stated that instead of enjoying the holidays, it became a torture for the complainants. On return, the complainants requested the bank to close the said account and also returned the debit card along with all the documents in possession belonged to the Bank. The complainants also sent a communication to the Managing Director of the OP No.1 through Regd. Post and another Manager of local branch, but to no avail. Hence, this complaint.  The complainants, in the present complaint, vide application dated 24.8.2011 have restricted their claim to the tune of Rs.9.50 lacs only.  The complainants have also placed on record their Air Tickets, Medical Card and copy of notice sent to OPs, as Ann.C-1 to C-4.   

2]           OPs No.1 & 2 filed joint reply, wherein, it has been admitted that the complainants approached OP No.2 for getting the debit card and for the said purpose, they opened a new account with the bank by filling the Account Opening Form with enclosures (Ann.R-1). A welcome kit was handed over to them, which provided the cheque book, debit card along with letter containing terms & conditions (Ann.R-2) governing the Account/Debit Card.  The welcome kit clearly provided that the account can be operated for credits only at the account branch over the counter with immediate effect. The debit card and cheques can be used only after 5-7 working days, subject to the condition that there is complete compliance of the terms and conditions as per the policy of the OP Bank. It is denied that the complainants visited the branch on 4^th October before leaving Chandigarh. In fact, the account became fully operational only on 1.11.2008, when the status of the account was changed by the branch from No Debit to Regular. It has been admitted that the credit balance of the account was Rs.1,50,000/-.  It was further pleaded that the account was opened on 11.9.2008 and since there was some query from Bombay Office of the OP bank, so, the debit card could not be made operational (Ann.R-3). The account was closed on 19.12.2008 under the instructions of the complainants. It has been denied that the Branch Manager informed the son of the complainant that the debit card would be operational. Infact, the debit card could not be operated due to discrepancy in the information provided by the complainants to the bank, at the time of opening the account, that is why, the OP Bank cannot be held liable for non-operation of the debit card. Denying all the material allegations of the complainant and pleading that there has been no deficiency in service on their part and prayer for dismissal of the complaint with costs has been made.

3]           Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4]           We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 

5]           The sole grouse of the complainants, in this complaint, is that despite submitting all the relevant documents with OPs as well as availability of sufficient funds in their new opened account, still the debit card in question, issued by the OPs was not made operational; though a specific assurance was given by the OPs that the card would be made operational within 4/5 days.  More so, the said card remained non-operational throughout the tour of the complainants.  Resultantly, the complainants had to cut a sorry figure, wherever they had tried to use the debit card, because every time it was found non-operational.  This all has resulted in gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.

6]           On the other hand, the OPs stated that as per the terms & conditions, governing the account/debit card of the complainants, a Welcome Kit containing cheque book and a Debit Card was handed over to the complainants.  The OPs, however, submitted that the Debit Card in question could not be made operational due to discrepancy in the information provided by the complainants to the Bank at the time of opening of the account.  Therefore, the OP Bank cannot be held liable for non-operation of the debit card that also for a short duration. 

7]           The OPs stated that the fault actually lies with the complainants themselves, on account of supplying incomplete/incorrect information to them while opening the account, which resultantly attributed to the existing problem.  

8]           After going through the documents, placed on file by both the parties and considering the whole facts & circumstances of the present case, it has been made out that the grievance of the complainants is absolutely justified because it was on the assurance/good faith of the OP Bank that they have opened a new account and deposited an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- into it for a specific purpose i.e. to get the Debit Card, which can be used during their journey/holiday trip to abroad.

9]           There is no denying the fact that due to non-operation of the said Debit Card, the complainants had faced great difficulty and the sole purpose of obtaining the Debit Card stood defeated.  Therefore, we opine that the deficiency in service on the part of OPs is writ large, because they have not provided proper/required services and has failed in their lawful duty as a Service Provider, the reason may be any.

10]         We find no justification in the statement taken as defence by the OPs whatsoever.   However, even if, for a while, there point is to be taken into account that there was some discrepancies in the documents submitted by the complainants, due to which the Debit Card cannot be made operational, until & unless those discrepancies are to be removed/corrected, even then it was their duty & responsibility to bring any such discrepancies, into the notice of the complainants, well in time, so that the same could be corrected/removed promptly.

11]         Admittedly, the new account of the complainant No.2 was opened on 11.9.2008 against which the Debit Card in question was issued, whereas the complainants visited abroad on 5.10.2009.   There was enough time of 23/24 days with the OP Bank to check the documents of complainant No.2 thoroughly i.e. between 11.9.2008 to 5.10.2009. Had they have taken proper/due care and have acted prudently, then they could have brought the discrepancies, if any, in the notice of the complainant No.2 to be cured/removed well in times, but they did not do so.

12]         The job of the OPs is a contract for personal service, when they had been paid to so, initially for consideration.  Moreover, as per settled law nobody can take benefit of its own wrong and furthermore, by not bringing the discrepancies, if any, as alleged, in the notice of the complainant No.2 well in time to avoid any inconvenience, faced by them.  They were not suppose to sit over the matter till the complainants/customers cried for help and approached them for making the Card operational or provide any such service, when they had received consideration for it.  Therefore, the OPs are held liable for their act & conduct in rendering deficient services.  

13]         The argument of ld.Counsel for OPs that due to certain discrepancies as pointed out in Ann.R-3, the Debit Card could not be made operational. When the query was put to the ld.Counsel for the OPs whether the said fact was brought to the notice of complainant No.2, he out rightly conceded that there is no evidence on the file that the discrepancy mentioned in Ann.R-3 was ever brought to the notice of complainant No.2.  Thus, we are of the opinion that the OPs cannot draw any advantage out of Ann.R-3.

14]         The complainants have filed the complaint jointly.  It is an admitted fact that the account was opened with OPs Bank by complainant No.2 and complainant No.1 is only a nominee as is evident from Ann.R-1 wherein the name of the account holder is RAJ MOHINI SETHI – Complainant No.2 and Complainant NO.1 – Mohinderjit Singh is only a nominee.  Thus, we are of the opinion that Complainant No.1- Mohinderjit Singh being the nominee does not fall under the definition of “consumer” as envisaged under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  

15]         Taking into consideration the whole circumstances of the case, we opine that the act & conduct of the OPs constitute deficiency in service on their part, as a result of which the complainant No.1 & her husband – complainant No.1, had not only suffered harassment, but humiliations too, that too in a Foreign Land, hence the OPs need to be penalized.  Therefore, we allow this complaint in favour of the complainant No.2 and against the OPs. Accordingly, the OPs are directed to jointly & severally pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant No.2, apart from litigation cost of Rs.15,000/-.

                This order be complied with by the OPs, jointly & severally, within a period of 30 days, from the date of receipt of its copy, failing which they shall be liable to pay an interest @12% p.a. on the above compensation amount of Rs.50,000/- from the date of filing this complaint 24.8.2011 till its actual payment, besides paying litigation cost as aforesaid.

              Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned, after compliance.