Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/74/2014

Ranjeet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Sh HS Kainth

08 Apr 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHGARH SAHIB.

                                 Consumer Complaint No.74 of 2014

Date of institution:  03.06.2014            Date of decision   :  08.04.2015

Ranjeet Singh aged about 42 years , son of Harcharan Singh, resident of House No.364, village Badauchi Kalan, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib.

……..Complainant

Versus

1. H.D.F.C. Bank Branch Fatehgarh Sahib, District Fatehgarh Sahib through its Branch Manager.
2. Corporate office: 6^th Floor, Leela Business Park, Andheri-Kurla Road Andheri (East) Mumbai.

…..Opposite Parties

Complaint Under Sections 12 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act

Quorum

Sh. Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President.                                                    Smt. Veena Chahal, Member.

 

Present :     None for complainant                                                                        Opposite party No.1 exparte.                                                              Pt.Narinder Kumar, counsel for OP no.2.

ORDER

By Sh. Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President.

 

                   Complainant, Ranjeet Singh, resident of village Badauchi Kalan, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib has filed this complaint against the Opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs) under Sections 11,12,&14 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.                The complainant is having account No.07261910001287 with the OP no.1 and has also availed the services of Master card bearing No.5241 1110 0106 0576 valid w.e.f.09/2012 to 05.2015. On 1.4.2013, there being Rs.650/- in the account of the complainant, i.e. less than the required amount, the OPs forced the complainant to pay the amount. The complainant requested the OPs to issue him the statement of account but the employee of the OPs refused to issue the same. The complainant came to know that the OPs issued two policies bearing No.51341973 and 51341972 of HDFC ERFO Insurance Company without his consent. The complainant moved an application for the cancellation of the same but no response was given by the OPs. The complainant, through his counsel Sh.H.S.Kainth, also got served a legal notice dated 24.7.2013 upon the OPs. The OPs failed to give any positive response. Thus there is deficiency of service on the OPs. Hence this complaint for a direction to the OPs to pay the entire amount alongwith interest, Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the harassment suffered by the complainant and Rs.10,000/- as counsel fee.

3.                Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs. None appeared to contest the case on behalf of OP no.1 despite service and was accordingly proceeded against exparte. OP No.2 appeared and filed the written version.

4.                In the written version filed on behalf of OP no.2,it is alleged that the policies in question were issued after the consent of the complainant given on telecalling and in this way there is no need of signing the proposal form for the policies. It is stated that VRS was duly recorded in this regard. Hence the policies were issued on the consent of the complainant. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP. After denouncing the other averments of the complaint, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.

5.                No evidence has been lead on behalf of the complainant despite having availed of six opportunities in this regard and thus the evidence of the complainant was closed by order of the Forum.

6.                On the other hand, OP no.2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Pankaj Kumar, Legal Manager, HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Ex.OP2/1, original C.D. containing voice Recording Ex.OP2/2 and closed the evidence.

7.                The complainant has alleged in his complaint that without is consent the OPs issued two Policies. He also alleged that he even approached  OP no.1 for cancellation of the said two policies but the OPs did not bother to adhere to his requests and has prayed for refund of the Premium and further prayed for grant of compensation as the OPs has committed deficiency of service.

8.                On the other hand, the ld. counsel for  OP no.2 has submitted that the said policies were only issued after obtaining consent from the complainant. The ld. counsel stated that the OPs issued the said policies after taking consent through VRS. He also submitted that the voice recording of the complainant clearly establishes that the complainant was duly explained about the policies and he confirmed and consented to issuing of the said policies and the same is evident from CD containing recording i.e Ex-OP2/2.The ld. counsel made a submission that the present complaint be dismissed in view of the recording and in absence of any evidence place on record on behalf of complainant.

9.                After hearing the Ld. Counsel for OP no.2 and going through the pleadings, evidence produced by OP no.2 and the oral submissions of ld. counsel for OP no.2, we are not persuaded to agree with the version of the complainant. We are of the opinion that the complainant has failed to place on record any document which can prove that the complainant did not give consent for issuing the said policies, whereas after hearing the voice recording i.e Ex-OP2/2 it clearly proves that the said policies were only issued after obtaining consent from the complainant and the same was given willingly. Accordingly in view of our aforementioned discussion, we find that the OPs have only issued the said policies after explaining all the terms and conditions and thereafter obtained the consent “yes issue the policies”. Thus, we are of the opinion that no deficiency of service has been committed by the OPs, hence the present complaint is dismissed being meritless. Parties to bear their own cost.

10.               The arguments on the complaint were heard on 07.04.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced

 Dated:08.04.2015

(A.P.S.Rajput)                            President

 

  (Veena Chahal)                             Member