Punjab

SAS Nagar Mohali

CC/745/2020

Raman Kumar Soni - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC Bank - Opp.Party(s)

In person

15 Jul 2020

ORDER

Heading1
Heading2
 
Complaint Case No. CC/745/2020
( Date of Filing : 16 Mar 2020 )
 
1. Raman Kumar Soni
S/o R.P. Soni # 1326, Ph-3B2, Mohali.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. HDFC Bank
Manager, HDFC Bank, SCF 55, 57, Ph-7 Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar, Mohali.
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
  Ms. Natasha Chopra PRESIDING MEMBER
  INDERJEET MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
Complainant in person.
 
For the Opp. Party:
Dated : 15 Jul 2020
Final Order / Judgement

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)

Consumer Complaint No.745 of 2020

                                                Date of institution:  16.03.2020                                              Date of decision   :  15.07.2020


Raman Kumar Soni son of R.P. Soni, # 1326, Phase 3B2, Mohali 160059.

 

…….Complainant

Versus

 

Manager, HDFC Bank, SCF 55, 57, Phase-7, SAS Nagar (Mohali)-160062.

 

                                                      ……..Opposite Party  

 

 

Quorum:   Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Presiding Member,

                Shri Inderjit, Member.

                 

Present:    Complainant in person.            

 

Order by :-  Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Presiding Member.

 

Order

                It has been averred by the complainant that he was on business tour at Udaipur on 13.02.2020 and wanted to withdraw Rs.10,000/- from HDFC Bank ATM. However, the balance in the current account with HDFC Bank was Rs.8446.02, as such complainant transferred Rs.5,000/- through online to said bank  account from his account with ICICI Bank. The transaction was successful and the balance in the account of complainant with HDFC Bank became Rs.13466.02.  However, when the complainant attempted to withdraw Rs.10,000/- from this account, the transaction was declined two times with ATM slip of ‘Transaction declined, insufficient funds’ and the  available balance was shown as Rs.855.78. Thereafter, the complainant transferred online money from his account with Kotak Bank to ICICI Bank and withdrew Rs.10,000/- instantly from ICICI Bank.  The complainant had to board a train at 5 P.M. for return journey to Mohali and he was to pay the withdrawn amount to a client for business transaction. The transaction by HDFC was declined at 3.35 P.M.  and the complainant had to move to other ICICI ATM before making online transaction of money transfer to ICICI Bank and also check out from hotel, which caused a mad rush of activities to be done before boarding the train within one hour during which period complainant had to meet the client, hotel check out and travel to railway station for boarding train.  An amount of Rs.1770/- was also deducted by the HDFC bank from his account on 09.01.2020 for not maintaining sufficient balance in the said current account in 4th quarter of 2019 and Rs.2124/- for not maintaining sufficient balance in his savings account. The complainant has sought directions to the OP to pay him Rs.50,000/- for mental agony, harassment, inconvenience and negligent services amounting to deficiency in service and also to pay him Rs.10,000/- as harassment and litigation charges.

2.             Arguments for admission purposes heard and records gone through.

3.             From the pleadings in the complaint, the cause of action arose to the complainant at Udaipur in Rajasthan on 13.02.2020 when the online amount was transferred by him from his ICICI Bank account to HDFC Bank account and subsequently when the amount from the HDFC Bank account could not be withdrawn by him on two attempts as the ATM slip was carrying remarks of “transaction declined insufficient funds”. The complainant pleaded that he has bank account with HDFC Bank which is alleged to be within the jurisdiction of this Forum. As per the averments contained in the complaint, entire cause of action has arisen at Udaipur in Rajasthan and not within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. Hence the present complaint is not maintainable before this Forum for want of territorial jurisdiction.

4.             As a sequel of above discussion, complaint is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The arguments on the complaint were heard and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the complainant.  Copy of the order be supplied to the complainant as per rules and thereafter the file be indexed and consigned to record room.

Announced

July 15, 2020

                                                               

(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)

Presiding Member

 

 

(Inderjit)

Member

 
 
[ Ms. Natasha Chopra]
PRESIDING MEMBER
 
 
[ INDERJEET]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.