Punjab

Faridkot

CC/16/162

Sheikh Faridkot Automobiles Ltd - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Anil Kumar Chawla

04 Aug 2016

ORDER

      DISTRICT  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  FORUM,  FARIDKOT

 

Complaint No. :       162

Date of Institution :  10.06.2016

Date of Decision :      4.08.2016

 

 

Sheikh Faridkot Automobiles Ltd, Faridkot Road, Kotkapura through its Director Vivek Garg aged about 56 years s/o Sh Hargobind Rai Garg, r/o Faridkot Road, Kotkapura Tehsil Kotkapura District Faridkot.

                                                                                                      .....Complainant

                   Versus

 

HDFC Bank Ltd. Faridkot Road, Kotkapura through its Branch Manager.

                                      ....Opposite Party

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum : Sh Ajit Aggarwal, President.

                Sh P Singla, Member.

 

 

Present: Sh Anil Chawla, Ld Counsel for complainant,

              OP-Exparte.

 

ORDER

(Ajit Aggarwal, President)

 

 

                                                      Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against HDFC Bank/ OP seeking directions to OP to refund Rs.40,721.93 with interest and for further directing OP to pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation on account of mental tension, harassment and inconvenience and Rs 10,000/- as cost of litigation.

 2                                                   Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant is having current account bearing no.06482000002145 with OP and complainant is the authorized dealer of Mohindra & Mohindra. It is submitted that Director of Firm is Vivek Garg, who is having saving account with OP and on 8.01.2016, said Director of complainant withdrew an amount of Rs1.20 crore from his saving account and deposited the same in the current account of complainant, which is in the name of firm. It is further submitted that on receipt of account statement, complainant was shocked to see that OP charged Rs.40,721.93 to his account on account of Cash Deep Home BRN charges, which is quite illegal and unlawful. It is contended that OP never told about charging this amount on deposit of amount in his current account nor any such conditions were displayed by OP in their bank premises. Thereafter, Director of complainant visited OP and requested to refund the said charged amount and to reverse the entry, but OP flatly refused to do so and also refused to refund the amount charged from his current account. Ld counsel for complainant contended that OP have no right to deduct such high level charges from the account of complainant without consent and moreover, at the time of opening of account, OP did not disclose regarding such charges. All this amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of OP; and this act and conduct of OP has caused much harassment and mental tension to complainant for which he has prayed for compensation to the tune of Rs.30,000/- and Rs.10,000/-as litigation expenses besides main relief. Hence, the present complaint.

3                                                The Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 15.06.2016, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

  4                                              RC containing copy of complaint alongwith documents and notice was sent to OP on 22.06.2016, which has not received back undelivered. Acknowledgment might have been mis laid or lost in transit. It is declared that OP have been duly served, but no body appeared on behalf of OP either in person or through counsel on date fixed and then, after long waiting till expiry of statutory period, OP was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 27.07.2016

   5                                            Ld Counsel for  tendered in exparte evidence affidavit of Vivek Garg as Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to C-3 and then, closed the evidence.

6                                                  As there is no rebuttal, therefore ld counsel for complainant advance exparte arguments.

7                                           Ld Counsel for complainant argued that complainant Firm is the consumer of OP as they have a current account with OP Bank and they are the authorized dealer of Mohindra & Mohindra. Director of Firm is Vivek Garg, who is having saving account with OP and on 8.01.2016, said Director of complainant withdrew an amount of Rs1.20 crore from his saving account and deposited the same in the current account of complainant, which is in the name of firm. It is submitted that on receipt of account statement, complainant was shocked to see that OP debited Rs.40,721.93 from their account on account of Cash Deep Home BRN charges, which is quite illegal and unlawful. It is contended that OP never told about charging this amount on deposit of amount in his current account nor any such conditions were displayed by OP in their bank premises. Thereafter, Director of complainant visited OP and requested to refund the said charged amount and to reverse the entry, but OP flatly refused to do so and also refused to refund the amount charged from his current account. The officials of Bank told that this amount is charged on account of cash deposit, but in fact, no cash was deposited in the account, rather it was only a transfer entry. Mr Vivek Garg, on one hand withdrew the amount from his account and deposited the same in the account of Firm. No cash was ever taken or deposited in both the entries. Counsel for complainant argued that all this act of OP Bank is a clear cut deficiency in service on the part of OP and OP is at fault and has done unfair trade practice by illegally deducting the amount from the account of the complainant, for which OP Bank has no right to deduct. Due to this illegal act of deduction of amount from the account of complainant by the OP, complainant has to suffer unnecessary harassment and he has prayed for accepting the complaint and has also prayed for compensation as mentioned in the complaint. In support of their case, complainant has produced case law in case titled as Canara Bank Vs S Vasudharini 2014 (II) Consumer Protection Judgment 649 (NC) wherein our Hon’ble National Commission held that Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 2 (1) (g), 21 (b) – Banking and Financial Institutions Services –Fraudulent transaction – Bank unilaterally debited amount without any written communication – Deficiency in service

 8                                The case of complainant is that he is a current account holder with OP Bank and  director of Firm withdrew Rs.1.20 crore from his saving account and deposited the same in the current account of complainant. On receiving the account statement issued by OP, complainant found that OP deducted Rs40,721.93 from their current account on account of Cash Deep Home BRN charges, which is quite illegal and unlawful. OP is exparte as it did not appear in the Forum to defend the allegations levelled against them.

9                                             We  have  heard  the  exparte arguments  advanced by complainant and  have  also  carefully  perused  the  pleadings  and  evidence  adduced  by  both  the complainant party.  The  statement  of  account  produced  by  ld  Counsel  for  complainant  Ex C-2 shows that the amount of Rs.40,721.93 paise was deducted on 16.01.2016 from the account of complainant without any prior intimation to him on account of cash deposit charges, whereas it is  clear that in actual no cash amount was deposited. On the one hand, Vivek Gar withdrew the amount from his saving account and on the other hand, he deposited the same in the account of Firm and no cash transaction took place on the spot and it was only a paper  transaction. Moreover, as per complainant, the OPs have never disclosed them regarding these types of charges.

 10                                 We are of the considered opinion that this act of OP Bank is illegal as OP had no right to deduct this amount from the account of complainant without their consent or intimation and this act of OP amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence, in these circumstances, present complaint is hereby allowed. The amount of Rs. 40,721.93 which was deducted by the OP Bank from the account of complainant, amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on their part. As such, complainant is entitled for compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by her. Therefore, OP Bank is ordered to refund the amount of Rs.40,721.93 illegally deducted by them from the account of complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 9 % per anum from 16.01.2016, when the complainant was charged this amount till final realization and are further ordered to pay Rs.3000/- to complainant on account of compensation for harassment and mental agony and Rs 2000/-for litigation expenses. OP Bank is directed to comply with the order within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which, complainant is entitled to proceed against OP Bank under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost as per law. File be consigned to the record room.

Announced in open Forum:

Dated: 4.08.2016

 

Member                             President

(P Singla)                       (Ajit Aggarwal)