Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/14/1041

SHANKARLAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC BANK - Opp.Party(s)

02 Dec 2015

ORDER

M. P. STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,                         

                             PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

 

                                      FIRST APPEAL NO. 1041 OF 2014

(Arising out of order dated 25.03.2014 passed in C.C.No. 15/2013 by District Forum, Dhar)

 

SHANKARLAL PARMAR,

S/O SHRI BHERULAL PARMAR,

R/O POST OFFICE CHAUPATI,

TEHSIL-DHAR, DISTRICT-DHAR M.P.                                           … APPELLANT.

 

Versus

 

1. H.D.F.C.BANK,

    THROUGH ITS MANAGER,

    HAPPY VILLA COLONY,

    DHAR, M.P.-454 001.

 

2. SAPAN CHAURASIYA,

    OFFICER, H.D.F.C.BANK,

    MANGLIYA BRANCH,

    INDORE M.P.                                                                               …RESPONDENTS.

 

BEFORE :

            HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAKESH SAKSENA    :     PRESIDENT

            HON’BLE SMT. NEERJA SINGH                             :       MEMBER

            HON’BLE SHRI SUBHASH JAIN                              :      MEMBER

                     

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

 

                Shri Akshay Pare, learned counsel for the appellant.

O R D E R

                                        (Passed on 02.12.2015)

                   The following order of the Commission was delivered by Shri Subhash Jain, Member:

           

                   This appeal is filed by the complainant/appellant against the order dated 25.03.2014 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dhar in C.C.No.15/2013 whereby his complaint has been dismissed.

 2.               The facts of the case as per complainant/appellant in brief are that he opened a bank account no. 09061930001433 through opposite party no.2/respondent no.2 in the opposite party no.1/respondent no.1 bank and deposited Rs.1,95,000/- in the said account.  It is alleged that the respondent

-2-

no.2 approached him and told that a new fixed deposit plan has been launched in HDFC bank in which the amount deposited would be double within a period of one or two years and took his signatures on some papers printed in English Language.  It is alleged that the respondent no.2 instead of depositing the amount in fixed deposit had issued six different policies and deposited the whole amount of Rs.1,95,000/- towards premium of those six policies.  When after some time he received phone calls for depositing the further premiums he came to know that the policies were issued.  He approached to the bank where assurance was given for refund of amount but the amount was not refunded.  He therefore filed a complaint before the District Forum, Bhopal alleging fraud and deficiency in service against the respondents and claiming amount of Rs.1,95,000/- with compensation and cost.

3.                The respondents remained ex-parte before the District Forum.

4.                The District Forum after hearing counsel for parties and after  considering evidentiary material on record found that the complainant had knowledge regarding issuance of policies as he signed the documents and found no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents dismissed the complaint with liberty to appellant to take criminal proceedings against the respondents.

 5.               We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 

6.                After hearing learned counsel for the appellant and on going through the record we find that it is admitted that six different insurance policies on different dates for different amount of premium were issued in

-3-

favour of appellant.  The appellant himself has produced those policies on record.  The details of those policies are 1) Policy No. 13636871 dated 24.04.2010 with annual premium Rs.25,000/- 2) Policy No. 13719514 dated 12.06.2010 with annual premium Rs.35,000/- 3) Policy No. 13771188 dated 03.07.2010 with annual premium Rs.50,000/- 4) Policy No. 13771406 dated 03.07.2010 with annual premium Rs.10,000/- 5) Policy No. 13979104 dated 19.10.2010 with annual premium Rs.50,000/- and 6) Policy No. 14108569 dated 29.12.2010 with annual premium Rs.25,000/-.  For these policies the appellant had paid premiums through different cheques issued by him, therefore it cannot be relied that the amount of Rs.1,95,000/- deposited by him was misappropriated by the respondent no.2.  Even otherwise when the appellant himself has filed original policies on record, it can be assumed that he must have knowledge regarding disputed policies and if he was not interested in those policies, he could have approached the bank within 30 days the free look period for cancellation of those policies.  When he himself signed the papers in English it cannot be presumed that he is an illiterate person. In this view of the matter we do not find any deficieny in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the respondents.  The District Forum has rightly dismissed the complaint.  We do not find any infirmity or adversity in the order passed by the District Forum.  The appeal is therefore dismissed as the admission stage having no merits at all.