DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 84 of 26.2.2016

                                      Decided on:         9.3.2021

Ramandeep Singla s/o Sh.Des Raj Singla R/o H.No.1-S, Singla Niwas, Sant Nagar, Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

HDFC Bank Ltd., Booth No.72, Leela Bhawan Market, Patiala through its Manager.

                                                                   …………Opposite Party

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

                                      Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President

                                      Sh.Y.S.Matta, Member 

ARGUED BY

                                      Sh.Dhiraj Puri, counsel for complainant.

                                      Sh.Sanjay Khanna, counsel for OP                               

 ORDER

                                      JASJIT SINGH BHINDER,PRESIDENT

1. This is the complaint filed by Ramandeep Singla   (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against HDFC Bank (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s)

FACTS OF THE COMPLAINT

2. Brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant has been maintaining account No.01161050050804 with the OP since long. It is averred that in the statement of account dated 16.9.2015 an entry of Rs.330/- was shown as debited  vide No.JBY2040390-OCC. The complainant approached the OP to know about the same but to no effect. Ultimately he got sent legal notice dated 30.1.2016 upon the OP but of no avail. There is thus deficiency in service on the part of the OP which caused mental agony and harassment to the complainant.Hence this complaint with the prayer to accept the same by giving direction to the OP to revert the entry of Rs.330/- to his account and also to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation alongwith litigation expenses of Rs.5500/-.

REPLY/WRITTEN STATEMENT

3. Upon notice OPs appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply. The OP raised preliminary objections that the complaint is liable to be dismissed as the complainant has concealed true facts from this Forum.
4. On merits, it is submitted that the Prime Minister Suraksha Insurance Scheme was launched relating to Rs.12/- and Rs.330/- and as per the consent of the complainant insurance policy was done and amount of Rs.330/- was deducted in his account with regard to the said policy. There is no deficiency in service on the part  of the OP. After denying all other averments, the OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
5.  
5. In support of the complaint, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C3 and closed the evidence.
6. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OP has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Chandeep Singh Branch Manager and closed the evidence.
7. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
8.  
9. The ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant was having an account with the OP and there is an entry of dated 16.9.2015 in the statement of account regarding the deduction of Rs.330/- from the account of the complainant and when the complainant approached the OP , it did not give satisfactory reply.As such the amount be refunded.
10. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OP has argued that Prime Minister Suraksha Insurance Scheme was launched by the Govt. for Rs.12/- and 330/- and the complainant duly consented for the deduction of Rs.330/-, so the amount was debited from his account and the complaint be dismissed.
11. To prove his case, complainant tendered his affidavit,Ex.CA and he has deposed as per his complaint  and has specifically stated that  vide entry dated 16.9.2015 Rs.330/- have wrongly bee debited from his account and he has proved the entry vide pass book, Ex.C1,Ex.C2 is the legal notice.
12. On the other hand Sh.Chandeep Singh Branch Manager has tendered his affidavit on behalf of the OP and he has stated that due to Prime Minister Suraksha Insurance Scheme amount of Rs.330/- was debited from the account of the complainant on his consent.
13. It is the specific case of the complainant that amount of Rs.330/- was debited from his account on 16.9.2015.This entry is also admitted by the OP in the written statement but they have stated that this money was debited regarding Prime Minister Suraksha Insurance Scheme and the said scheme was for Rs.12/- and Rs.330/-. But strangely there is no document placed on the file by the OP to show that the policy was duly given to the complainant who was having the account with the bank. So the claim of the complainant is justified as the OP has not been able to led any evidence on the file to show that they debited the amount due to Prime Minister Suraksha Insurance Scheme.
14. So, due to our above discussion the complaint is allowed and the OP is directed to refund the amount of Rs.330/- to the complainant alongwith interest @6% per annum from the date of deduction till realization and also to pay Rs.2500/- as compensation and Rs.2500/- as litigation expenses. Compliance of the order be made by the  OP within a period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order.

ANNOUNCED

DATED:9.3.2021         

                                                    Y.S.Matta                Jasjit Singh Bhinder

                                                      Member                                   President