JUDGEMENT

          Complainantby filing this complaint has submitted that he is a bona fide customer of HDFC Bank having Bank Account No. 01742560001066 and complainant has been enjoying the said bank account for a pretty long period.

          For last few months in the year 2012 complainant had faced a lot of difficulties to deposit intercity cash deposit in his bank account due to negligent attitude of the op members by way of refusing to accept money in his account on various false and flimsy ground and several requests and appeals and persuasions made by the complainant through his e-mails to the various officials of the op to expedite or solve the matter but no fruitful result was received.

          Subsequently when complainant personally visited the op HDFC Bank on 01.08.2012 at his Shyambazar branch op members enquired about the problem, one of the official of the op members Mrs. TanupriyaPrashant suddenly became furious and insulted the complainant at top of her voice openly in most indecent manner and fashion in presence of many customers and other outsiders and MrsTanupriyaPrashant had deliberately violated the official decorum and norms as expected under normal circumstances.

          Incidentally on 25.08.2012 complainant again had intimated to one of the official of the op members Mr. Anamitra Bhattacharya through his email that on 27.08.2012 an intercity cash deposit will be done to the tune of Rs.2,50,000/- in the account of the op no.1 at Howrah, Dobson Road Branch but with regret the members again refused to accept the same reason without any reason and it is further mentioned that due to several negligence on the part of the op members complainant has been incurring irreparable business losses and financial damages in this regard even no fault on the part of the complainant.

          Practically complainant as a bona fide consumer of the op hired banking services of the op but op rendered gross negligence, professional misconduct and callousness to the complainant and in fact op members have completely failed and neglected to discharge professional duty and obligation for which complainant has prayed for compensation and for harassment, mental agony.

          On the other hand op by filing written statement submitted that no doubt complainant is a bona fide customer of the op but the account as held by the complainant is trade current account in the name of M/s Coin World that is commercial organization of his business and it was not in the name of Sandip Kumar Singhvi.  So, complainant does not fall under the purview of the consumer and ultimately M/s Coin World a commercial organization cannot suffer pain and agony and from the said account it is found that account holder is not running business for certain employees who are working and even bonus is also paid to them by account holder and for which the present complaint is not maintainable.  Further it is submitted that the cash at non home branch deposit is applicable to the limit of Rs.50,000/- and at times as an exception consideration the request the account holder was entertainedpurely as a service gesture as a case to assist the customer above limit of Rs.50,000/- at non home branch i.e. on 13.09.2012 and amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- which is deposited by the complainant at HDFC Bank Branch on 02.02.2012 the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- was deposited at Bhagalpur branch and it is clearly established that customer was well aware of the non home branch limit of deposit hence no deficiency was enjoyed by the complainant.

          It is further submitted that account holder during his meeting with the bank was asked to upgrade the current account wherein product feature may be increased and cash deposit limit would be increased regarding cash deposit fornon intercity/ non home branch as the instant current account shall not exceed deposit of Rs.50,000/- at non home branch and as per product feature trade current accountenjoys facility at non home branch to the limit of Rs.50,000/-.  So, complainant was well aware of the fact and he never faced any sort of problem in depositing cash upto the permissible cash deposit limit and during the last financial year more than 20 instances of cash deposit at non home branch and one occasion i.e. on 17.12.2012 customer has even deposited an amount of Rs.49,900/- at non home branch which will speak for itself and does not require any further clarification from op rather it clearly establishes that at no point of time account holder faced any problem while depositing cash at non home branch within the prescribed applicable limit.

          It is further submitted by the op that they are governed prescribed rules as applicable in different trading and as per rules and in the trade cash account deposit of cash of Rs.50,000/-  at non home branches is applicable but the complainant failed answer by cogent document that op was deficient in service to account holder as per product features of Trade Current account which is being operated by account holder with them since 06.09.2007.  So, in the circumstances the complaint should be dismissed and the entire complaint is vexatious and without any foundation.  Hence, the allegations in the complaint are false and baseless and the instant complaint should be dismissed with cost.

Decision with reasons

          On in depth study of complaint and written version we have gathered that complainant main dispute or grievance is that as admitted consumer of the op he intended to avail of intercity cash deposit facilities of the op Bank on 27.08.2012 for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- in the account of the complainant being No.01742560001066 at HDFC Bank, Howrah, Dobson Road Branch and before that he informed on 25.08.2012 about that to the op’s officer Mrs. A. Bhattacharya through E-mail.  However, the said officer of the op refused to accept the same but no receipt was given.  So, we must have to search out the reason for refusal instead of giving relief for intercity cash deposit of Rs.2,50,000/- and if it is permissible as per rules of the HDFC Bank in that case no doubt it is deficiency of service and refusal of service shall be treated as deficiency of service on the part of the op.  Fact remains that ops Mrs.  A. Bhattacharya refused to give such service for Intercity Cash Deposit at op’s Howrah Dobson Road Branch in respect of complainant’s account No.01742560001066 for a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/-. 

          But op Bank asserted that as per service and fees fare chart of the HDFC Bank trade against current account is effective from 01.01.2012 limit of inter branch deposit with home branch city or cash deposit non home branch city is restricted up to Rs.50,000/- and cash deposit at non home branch within home branch city subject to limit of Rs.50,000/- per account per day and charges is fixed of Rs.3.5% up to Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.50,000/- maximum deposit allowed upto Rs.50,000/- per day and considering the said regulation of the op and also the regulations of the op Bank as annexed with the written version,it is found that norms in respect of cash deposit at non home branch or limit of intercity cash deposit with home branch is only Rs.50,000/- and no doubt the present account of the complainant is trade current account as a product features.  So, complainant is entitled to deposit Rs.50,000/- as cash deposit limit in non home branch of the account holder and the complainant was aware of that.  Fact remains account holder was suggested to upgrade his account where cash deposit at non home branch shall be higher which will give benefit to the account holder to facilitate higher cash deposit at non home branch as because complainant account holder is a commercial organization but complainant has failed to produce any paper to show that against current account intercity cash deposit for non home branch or within home branch city has no limit upto Rs.50,000/- and for the sake of the argument if it is accepted that complainant was refused by the op to accept Rs.2,50,000/- on 27.08.2012 as Intercity Cash Deposit against his present account,then it was within the jurisdiction of the op to refuse it because against current account limit is only to Rs.50,000/-.  So, apparently no deficiency or negligence on the part of the ops is proved by the complainant.

          But anyhow complainant has tried to convince that earlier on some occasion he deposited Rs.1,00,000/- on 13.09.2012 and Rs.3,15,000/- on 02.01.2012  at Howrah Branch and Bhagalpur Branch of the op but that was accepted and it was transferred trading as intercity home branch facilities.  But in this regard op has stated that only to show their good gesture as complainant was a bona fide consumer they accepted it but it is not as per law.  But for special case it was done.

          Then question is whether the refusal on the part of the op not to accept Rs.2,50,000/- on 27.08.2012 as intercity cash deposit was legal or not.  In this regard we have gone through the said notification of the HDFC Bank trade regarding current account and also about his service and fees effective from 01.01.2012 that complainant is not entitled to deposit more than Rs.50,000/- for intercity branch deposit or non home deposit in any branch and when this is the norms and regulations of the op Bank then it is clear that ops by refusing the complainant to accept his Rs.2,50,000/- on 27.08.2012 as intercity cash deposit was correct and it was legal and for which complainant cannot get any benefit by filing this complaint when no deficiency or negligence on the part of the op is found.

          Similarly after thorough study of the complaint and the written version including the regulations of the op Bank as produced we have gathered that complainant had his scope to enjoy such facilities by upgrading his account for cash deposit limit at non-home branch to enjoy higher cash deposit at non-home branch or Intercity Cash Deposit transaction and no doubt the op informed the complainant to change his status of the current account accordingly.  But complainant did not accept it, so there was no scope of op to give him such a relief against such current account of the complainant because it was not upgraded by the complainant as per request of the op.

          In the result, we have gathered that the entire complaint is baseless and without any foundation for which there is no ground to consider the prayer of the complainant and thus the complaint fails.

          Hence, it is

ORDERED

          That the complaint be and the same is dismissed on contest but without any cost against the ops.

          The ops are directed to close down all the account as per wish of the complainant without any harassment and in this regard op shall render all services and if it is found that complainant has been harassed by the ops in that case op shall be dealt with heavy hands and huge penalty shall be imposed against for such sort of unmannerly behavior and conduct of the ops.