Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/1026/2016

Parvinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Abhishek Bhateja

02 Mar 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/1026/2016
Date of Institution	:	25/11/2016
Date of Decision	:	02/03/2017

 

Parvinder Singh son of Mr. Iqbal Singh, resident of House No.95, Sector 27-A, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

1.     HDFC Bank, SCO No.21, Sector 27-A, Chandigarh through its Manager/Proprietor.

2.     HDFC Bank House, 1^st Floor, C.S. No.6/242, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013 through its Manager/Proprietor.

……Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	S.S. PANESAR	PRESIDENT
	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Abhishek Bhateja, Counsel for complainant
	:	OPs ex-parte

 

Per S.S. Panesar, President

1.         The facts of the consumer complaint, in brief, are that the complainant was an account holder of the OP bank. On 4.5.2016, the complainant issued cheque No.000022 of Rs.21,000/- as shagun to his son-in-law and daughter as they were blessed with a baby boy.  However, when the said cheque was presented by the complainant’s son-in-law, the same was returned on 11.5.2016 with the remarks “funds insufficient” despite the fact that the account was having balance of Rs.23,280/-. The complainant approached the OP bank and wrote an email dated 13.5.2016, but, no reply was received. The complainant has alleged that due to the act and conduct of the OPs, he was embarrassed and his image was hit very hard in front of his daughter’s in-laws. Hence, this consumer complaint.
2.         OPs did not appear despite due serve, therefore, they were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 25.1.2017.
3.         The complainant led evidence in support of his contentions. 
4.         We have gone through the record and heard the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel for the complainant.
5.         From the appreciation of the evidence on record, it becomes evident that the complainant is an account holder with the OP bank bearing account No.13241930002895. On 4.5.2016, the complainant issued a cheque No.000022 of HDFC Bank for an amount of Rs.21,000/- in favour of his daughter Ms. Ramneek and son-in-law, Mr. T.P. Singh as shagun for their new born baby.  However, the cheque was dishonoured by the HDFC Bank vide memo dated 30.9.2016 (Annexure C-1) stating therein as under :-

        “Certify that HDFC Bank cheque No.000022 dated 04-05-2016 of amount Rs.21000/- favoring Ramneek & T.P. Singh was presenting in clearing on 11.05.2016 and same was returned due to “Funds Insufficient” reason.”

But, however, a perusal of the copy of the bank statement (Annexure C-2) would reveal that a sum of Rs.23,980.66 was in credit in favour of the complainant, Mr. Parvinder Singh.  The complainant got served a legal notice dated 27.9.2016 (Annexure C-4) upon the OPs for paying the compensation for deficiency in service as well as adopting unfair trade practice. Postal receipts account for Annexure C-5.  The evidence adduced by the complainant has gone unrebutted on record as OPs have suffered exparte willfully despite due service. 

6.         On similar set of facts, the Hon’ble National Commission in HDFC Bank Ltd. Vs. Kailash Nath Agarwal, I (2016) CPJ 684 (NC) has held that apart from the statement of account we find that complainant had sufficient fund in his said account on the date of presentation of the cheque in question.  We find clear negligence and deficiency on the part of OPs being a service provider to its consumer/complainant as annex-D attached with the petition of complaint reflects that uptil 14.12.2009 complainant had closing balance amount of Rs.48,184.24 and thereafter the amount was hold on. So, the complainant is entitled to relief. 
7.         The facts of the present case are squarely covered under the authority ‘supra’ and we hold that the complaint is liable to be allowed.  The OPs are directed as under :-

(i)     To pay to the complainant Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony, physical pain and inconvenience caused to him;

(ii)    To pay to the complainant Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation. 

8.         This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amount mentioned at Sr.No.(i) above, with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(ii) above.
9.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
02/03/2017	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[S.S. Panesar]
hg	Member	Member	President