Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/418/2014

Sarabjit Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Nitin Arora, Adv.

10 Nov 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	418 of 2014
Date  of  Institution	:	14/8/2014
Date   of   Decision	:	16.11.2015

 

 

 

 

 

Sarabjit Kaur WD/O Karamjit Singh R/o 88, Vill-Koru Majra, Teh & Dist. SAS Nagar, Mohali Punjab.

 

              …..Complainant

Versus

 

 

1]   H.D.F.C. Bank Head Office Industrial Area Phase-I, Chandigarh.

 

2]   Manager, HDFC Bank SCO No. 288, Sector 32D, Chandigarh.

3]   HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd. 1^st and 2^nd Floor, SCO No.1A-120, Sector 43-B, Chandigarh.

 

….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:   SH.RAJAN DEWAN               PRESIDENT

          SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU          MEMBER

          MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA           MEMBER

 

 

 

For complainant(s)   :      Sh. Nitin Arora, Advocate

 

For Opposite Party(s)      :      Sh. J.S. Mann, Advocate for OP No.1

                                   Opposite Parties No.2&3 exparte.

 

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

 

 

           As per the case of the complainant the Opposite Parties wrongly issued a saving plan policy  bearing No.12349329 of Rs.50,00,000/-  when she approached Opposite Party No.2 in the year 2008 to make a fixed deposit of Rs.5.00 lacs which she received from selling of land in her village.   The complainant further submitted that Opposite Parties with malafide intention and in order to grab her money instead of making a fix deposit of Rs.5.00 lacs issued her saving plan policy as per which she was required to pay Rs.5 lakh every year. The complainant being unware of the actual facts of issuance of the said policy was under the impression that Opposite Parties have made fixed deposit of Rs.5.00 lacs for a term of 5 years and was waiting for the maturity of the FDR amount. In the month of May 2013 when the complainant approached the concerned branch of the Opposite Parties’-bank for encashment of the fixed deposit of Rs.5.00 lacs she was shocked to know that she had to pay Rs.20 lacs more pending against her. Aggrieved with this act of the Opposite Parties the complainant issued legal notice dated 31.5.2013 and also lodged police complaint against the Opposite Parties bank. Thereafter the Opposite Parties bank returned
Rs. 5.00 lacs to the complainant with assurance of payment of interest on the amount in question.  However the Opposite Parties did not pay any interest till date. Alleging the said act of OPs as deficiency in service, this compliant has been filed.

 

2.      None  appeared on behalf of Opposite Parties No.2 &3 despite service, therefore, they were proceeded against ex-parte on 7.11.2015.
3.      Opposite Party No.1 (HDFC Bank) in its reply stated that  no cause of action ever arose to the complainant against it as Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.3 are two separate legal entities having no concern with each other. It has been stated that the policy was not issued by the answering Opposite Party and as such the complaint qua it is liable to be dismissed. Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegations, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
4. The Complainant also filed rejoinder thereby reiterating the averments as made in complaint and controverting that of the Opposite Party No.1 made in the reply.
5. Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
6. We have heard the ld. Counsel for the complainant, ld. Counsel for Opposite Party No.1 and have also perused the record.
7. There is no contradiction that the complainant filed this complaint with the allegation that the Opposite Parties wrongly issued a saving plan policy  bearing No.12349329 when she after selling her land in village approached the Opposite Party No.2 in the year 2008 to make a fixed deposit of Rs.5.00 lacs obtained by her as her share. The complainant submitted that Opposite Party No.1 with malafide intention and in order to grab her money instead of making a fix deposit of Rs.5.00 lacs issued saving plan policy Annexure C-1 whereby the complainant was supposed to pay Rs.5 lakh every year which is next to impossible to cope up by the complainant being poor widow having no other source of income. The complainant further claimed that she being unaware of the actual facts of issuance of the policy was under the impression that Opposite  Parties have made fixed deposit of Rs.5.00 lacs for a term of 5 years and was waiting for the maturity of the FDR. The complainant further claimed that when in the month of May 2013 she approached the concerned branch of the Opposite Party-bank for encashment of the fixed deposit of Rs.5.00 lacs she stunned to know that she had to pay Rs.20 lacs more pending against her. The complainant agitated the matter with Opposite Parties and issued a legal notice dated 31.5.2013 and also lodged police complaint against the Opposite Parties. As a matter of fact admitted by the complainant the Manager of the bank agreed to return Rs. 5.00 lacs with assurance of  payment of interest to be paid for the last five years.        The complainant submitted that she received an amount of Rs.5.00 lacs in her account but till the date of filing the complaint she has not been paid interest on the amount in question. The complainant further submitted that the Opposite Parties in the month of June 2014 categorically refused to give interest on the amount of Rs.5.00 lacs, which forced her to file the present complaint.
8. Opposite Party No.1 claimed that no cause of action ever arose to the complainant against it as Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.3 are two separate legal entities having no concern with each other and prayed dismissal of the complaint.
9.      Opposite Parties No.2&3 despite due service failed to appear to contradict the allegations made by the complainant in the complaint duly supported by her affidavit and as such the same goes unrebutted. The intentional absence of Opposite Parties No.2&3 further fortifies the claim of the complainant that refund of the principal amount by the Opposite Parties after keeping it for 5 years that too without any interest is proven deficiency in service on their part. There is no explanation that why the interest of the said amount has not been paid by the Opposite Parties and also there is no record submitted even by Opposite Party No.1 to show that what profits were generated on the policy wrongly issued to the complainant, which further suggests that in the interest of justice the complainant is entitled not only for the interest on the invested amount of Rs.5.00 lacs but also needs to be compensated for the deficiency in service.
10.      In view of the above, we are of the view that the complainant is duly entitled for interest on the principal amount, which remained with Opposite Parties for five years as the complainant was wrongly ousted from the benefits of her huge amount. 
11.      In our concerted view the complaint deserves to be allowed.  Accordingly, the complaint is allowed and the Opposite Parties are jointly & severally directed as under:-

         

a]   To pay interest @9% on the principal amount of Rs.5.00 lacs  from
the date of issuance of the policy in question till the said amount refunded afterwards.  .

 

b]   To pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation for deficiency on the part of the Opposite Parties and also for causing mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant.

 

C]   To pay Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.

 

14.       The above said order shall be complied with by the Opposite Parties within 45 days of its receipt, failing which they shall be liable to pay interest @12% instead of 9% on the principle amount as above from the date of issuance of the policy in question till the said amount refunded afterwards as well as on the compensation amount at (b) of Rs.25,000/-, from the date of this order till it is paid, besides paying litigation expenses.

 

15.       The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

16.11.2015                   

                                                                             Sd/-

 (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

 (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

mp                                                                                                                       

 

 

DISTRICT FORUM – II

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.418 OF 2014

PRESENT:   None   Dated the 16th  day of November, 2015

O R D E R                        Vide our detailed order of even date, recorded separately, the complaint has been allowed against Opposite Parties.                    After compliance, file be consigned to record room.

 

(Priti Malhotra)	(Rajan Dewan)	(Jaswinder Singh Sidhu)
Member	President	Member