Haryana

Ambala

CC/158/2022

M/s Gupta Sanitary and Marble House - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Navneet Singh

02 May 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

Complaint case no.	:	158 of 2022
Date of Institution	:	23.05.2022
Date of decision	:	02.05.2024

M/s Gupta Sanitary and Marble House, Defence Colony, Sector B, Ambala Cantt through its proprietor Sh. Shaman Gupta son of Sh. Ramesh Chand Gupta r/o H. No.1, Gobind Nagar, Ambala Cantt, Tehsil Ambala Cantt. District Ambala.

……. Complainant

Versus

1. HDFC Bank, Branch Kalerhri Road, Defence Colony, Ambala Cantt. Tehsil Ambala Cantt. District Ambala through its Branch Manager.
2. Manager, HDFC Bank, Branch Kalerhri Road, Defence Colony, Ambala Cantt. Tehsil Ambala Cantt. District Ambala.
3. Managing Director/Corporate Office, HDFC House, 165-166, Backbay Reclamation, HT Parekh Marg, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020.

….…. Opposite Parties

 Before:       Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                     Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

          Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.           

 

Present:      Shri Navneet Singh Malhotra, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.

                    Shri Sandeep Bakshi, Advocate, counsel for  the OPs.

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 directions to them to pay compensation of Rs.15 lac for causing financial loss, mental agony, physical harassment to the proprietor of complainant alongwith interest @18% p.a, till its realization.

2.             Brief facts of this case are that the complainant namely M/s Gupta Sanitary and Marble House, having its business premises at Defence Colony, Sector B, Ambala Cantt., whose Proprietor is Sh. Shaman Gupta son of Sh. Ramesh Chand Gupta.  The proprietor of complainant is doing the business of selling and supplying of building construction material viz. Cement, Cores sand, Bricks, Marbles and floor/wall tiles etc. The complainant-firm was a customer of the OPs and was having a current account in the HDFC Bank, Branch Kalerhri Road, Defence Colony, Ambala Cantt vide account no.5020 00145 45261. Complainant-firm was running his account very well, with routine transaction having minimum balance and by fulfilling other necessary requirements. In the month of June 2020, when the proprietor of complainant -firm was in need of money for his business purpose and wanted to transfer the amount into the account of other person. The proprietor of complainant- firm visited the Branch, but the officials of Bank told to proprietor of complainant-firm that above account has been closed on 26.05.2020 at the instance of the OPs, unilaterally. The proprietor of complainant-firm was shocked to hear that above said current account was closed without any prior notice, intimation, message and email to proprietor of complainant- firm. Due to unilateral, unethical, wrong closer of account of complainant- firm by the OPs, complainant-firm has to suffer financial loss and damages in its business. Two more saving accounts having accounts no.50100104570083 (account holder name Mrs. Pushpa Gupta wife of Sh. Ramesh Chand Gupta) and 50100175392618 (account holder name Archna Gupta wife of Sh. Raman Gupta) related to the family members of proprietor of complainant-firm were also illegally and intentionally closed by OP no.1 without notice, intimation, message and email to the holders of account. The OPs did not follow the norms made by Reserve Bank of India and also in Banking Law, and act in such illegal manner just to harass and humiliate the proprietor of complainant-firm. Due to deliberate negligent behavior of OPs, the Complainant-firm have suffered huge business, monetary and mentally loss. Hence, the present complaint.
3.           Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed written version wherein they took various preliminary objection to the effect that the present complainant is not covered under the definition of consumer, as the dispute is qua a current account of the complainant maintained in  OP No.1. It has been held by Hon'ble National Commission in case titled as M/s Bird Machines Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Indusind Bank Limited 2020(2) C.P.J. 258 that:- Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 2(1)(d)(ii) Consumer Commercial purpose-Banking and financial services Cash credit limit and loan obtained Dispute as to Foreclosure charges/processing fee for BBG, Tax Invoice on deducted amount, and over that amount of GST Credit facilities were taken by the complainant from the bank for the purpose of its business activities- Amount which the complainant took from the bank was to be used to serve the commercial interest of the company Services of the bank were availed by the complainant for commercial purpose - Complaint dismissed. It has been further held by Hon'ble National Commission in case titled as West Fort Hi-Tech Hospital Limited Vs. Punjab National Bank 2020(1) C.P.R. 529 as under:- Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Sections 2 (1)(d) and 19 Scope of "Consumer" Complainant opened a current account with the bank for the purpose of carrying out its business activities- Purpose behind opening the said account therefore was to serve the commercial interests of the company- Business activities of the complainant could not have been conveniently carried out without hiring or availing the services of a bank- Held, the services of the bank were hired for a commercial purpose; the complaint is not maintainable; the complainant is not a consumer etc.   On merits, it has been stated that the complainant had a current bank account number.50200014545261 with the OP No.1 bank in the name of Gupta Sanitary and Marble House. The brother of the complainant/proprietor of the firm namely Mr. Raman Gupta, was authorized signatory of current account and used to deal with the Bank with regard to transactions and business withdrawals even he was the joint account holder of other family accounts with the bank. He continuously harassed a teller/employee of HDFC Bank namely Ms. Shailja Kashyap from the last more than 1 year. He was harassing the employee Ms. Shailja Kashyap by dropping messages to her during day time- Late evening hours after office timings and even late nights @ 01/02 AM. Even he found her personal mail ID from social website and started mailing her illogical long mails without any reason continuously. In starting, the employee being female had ignored such messages and Emails for quite long time but when the said action of Mr.Raman Gupta brother of the proprietor/complainant exceeded to the higher level and started creating trouble in the mind of the employee, she had made complaint against the Mr. Raman Gupta to the BM i.e. OP по.2 and even escalated the matter to the higher officials. On the complaint of employee Ms. Shailja Kashyap, the Branch Manager had escalated the matter to his senior hierarchy. Even the BM along with other officials of bank met with the family of Mr.Raman Gupta in December, 2018 at their shop at Mahesh Nagar, Ambala Cantt and had narrated the entire situation and showed the messages dropped by Mr.Raman Gupta to Ms. Shailja Kashyap (employee of bank) and then the parents of Mr.Raman Gupta along with family members assured and promised to the OP officials that Mr. Raman Gupta will never do such things again but all in vain. Since the complainant was a customer of the OPs bank for a very long time, therefore, as a goodwill gesture the OPs believed the promise given by the parents of Mr. Raman Gupta and Raman Gupta has also felt sorry from the employee-Ms. Shailja Kashyap in front of other bank officials but the same things happened again after 3-4 months and same type of long illogical messages without any reasoning and good sense have been dropped by Mr. Raman Gupta to Ms. Shailja Kashyap. It is pertinent to mention here that due to the said acts and conducts of dropping mails, the employee Ms. Shailja Kashyap has left the job in 2020. The matter was escalated to the senior hierarchy and after getting approval to close the relationship and accounts with the said Mr. Raman Gupta and his family, the intimation mails/notices have been issued to the Proprietor of the complainant firm and Mr. Raman Gupta joint account holder of the firm current account regarding filling of closure form and signatures on the closure forms but Mr. Raman Gupta intentionally had not visited the bank and even not signed the documents necessary for closure of bank accounts. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by the OPs and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint alongwith heavy costs.
4.           Learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of Shaman Gupta son of Shri Ramesh Chand Gupta, r/o House No.1, Gobind Nagar, Ambala Cantt., Tehsil Ambala Cantt. District Ambala as Annexure CW1/A alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-3 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs tendered affidavit of Sh. Deepak, Deputy Manager, HDFC Bank Limited, Defence Colony, Ambala Cantt. and affidavit of Shri Gagan Baweja, Branch Manager, HDFC Bank Limited, Defence Colony, Ambala Cantt. as Annexure OP-1/A and OP-1/B respectively alongwith documents as Annexure OP-1 to OP-4 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.
5.           We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the case file.
6.           Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that by closing the bank account of the complainant and also his relatives, without any legal and valid reason, the OPs are deficient in providing service.  
7.           On the other hand, learned counsel for OPs  while reiterating the  objections and contentions raised in the written version submitted that the  brother of the complainant namely Raman Gupta harassed one teller/employee of the OPs namely Ms.Sailja Kashyap for more than 1 Year, as he kept on dropping vulgar messages to her during day timings and also late nights. He further submitted that when despite giving number of opportunities to Raman Gupta to refrain himself from doing so, as such, the account in question was closed by the OPs, after taking due approval from the Senior Officers.
8.           The moot question which falls for consideration is as to whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief in this case or not. It may be stated here that from the contentions raised by the OPs in their written version and also raised by their Counsel during course of arguments, it is coming out that the account of the complainant was closed by the OPs, only on one ground that the brother of the proprietor of complainant namely Raman Gupta harassed one teller/employee of the OPs namely Ms.Sailja Kashyap for more than 1 Year, as he kept on dropping vulgar messages to her during day timings and also late nights. To substantiate their ground, the OPs have placed on record emails/messages, Annexure OP-3 colly. having been sent by Raman Gupta to the said teller.  We have gone through the said emails/messages and did not find that the proprietor of complainant i.e. Shaman Gupta was in any way involved in it. In our considered opinion, if Raman Gupta, brother of the proprietor of complainant misbehaved with the employee of the Bank or used unparliamentary language or have sent vulgar messages to her, the complainant cannot be held responsible for it and he cannot be made scapegoat by closing his account for the act and conduct of  his brother. The brother of the complainant and proprietor of complainant i.e. Shaman Gupta are two separate entities in the eyes of law and no act of any of them can be thrust upon each other.  On the other hand, the OPs should have taken legal action against  Raman Gupta but instead of doing that they  closed the account of the proprietor of complainant. In our view that by closing the account of the complainant without any legal and valid ground, having direct connection with the proprietor of complainant, the OPs are deficient in providing service for which they are liable to compensate the proprietor of complainant i.e. Shaman Gupta for causing him mental agony and harassment.  
9.           In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby allow the present complaint and direct the OPs, in the following manner:-

1.   To pay compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/- and cost of litigation of Rs.3000/- to the proprietor of complainant for deficiency in service and negligence & mental agony and harassment caused to the proprietor of the complainant.            

                    The OPs are further directed to comply with the aforesaid directions within the period of 45 days, from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order, failing which the OPs shall pay interest @ 8% per annum on the awarded amount, from the date of default, till realization. Certified copy of this 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:- 02.05.2024

 

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