Date of decision : 29.4.2007<br /> Sohinder Pal Singh son of Sh.Surjit Singh , resident of House No.445, Model Town Kapurthala.<br /> Complainant.<br /> Versus<br /> 1. HDFC Bank Pvt. Ltd. M.G.N. Pblic School, , The Mall, Kapurthala through its Branch Manager.<br /> 2. HDFC Bank Pvt. Ltd. Bank House, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013, through its Chairman.<br /> Opposite parties.<br /> Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act.<br /> Quoram : Sh.A.K. Sharma President.<br /> Sh.Surinder Mittal, Member Member.<br /> Present : Complainant in person.<br /> None for the opposite parties.<br /> JUDGMENT (SH.A.K. SHARMA PRESIDENT.)<br /> Present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date has been filed by the complainant Sohinder Pal Singh against opposite parties i.e. HDFC Bank, The Mall, Kapurthala through its Branch Manager and also its head office at Mumbai through its Chairman seeking direction against the opposite parties to refund Rs.4816.94/- as wrongly and illegally deducted and monetary compensation for deficiency in its service.<br /> 2. In nutshell, facts of the complaint are that complainant is consumer of the opposite party HDFC Bank, The Mall Kapurthala having an account bearing No.1381000057808. One credit card was also issued by the opposite parties but he never used the said credit card nor activated the same . It is further alleged that a sum of Rs.4816.94/- was withdrawn from his account on 31/7/07 through credit card by the opposite parties in connivance with each other for some ulterior motive and without his consent and knowledge which amount to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties for which he is not only entitled to refund of amount of the said amount but also monetary compensation.<br /> 3. Opposite parties appeared and controverted the allegations of the complainant and resisted his claim. It is pleaded that complainant has come to the forum with malafide intention. In fact he has taken the credit card and also has applied for the facility of auto debit whereby his mobile phone bills would be automatically paid through his credit card account.. This fact is admitted that amount of Rs. 4816.94/- were withdrawn from his account justifiably as he used the credit card and has made payment through his credit card. . Complainant was asked many a times to pay his pending bills but he failed to do so. Bank has not committed any illegality. Therefore, there is no question of any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.<br /> 4. In support of his version complainant Sohinder Pal Singh has produced in evidence his own affidavit Ex.CA.<br /> 5. However, opposite parties failed to appear to produce evidence without any justification on 1/4/08, 9/4/08, and also on 17/4/08 when none appeared on behalf of opposite parties and as such evidence of the opposite parties was closed by order.<br /> 6. We have heard arguments of complainant. Complainant has reiterated his allegations in his affidavit Ex.CA that a sum of Rs.4816.94/- was withdrawn from his account through credit card by the opposite parties on 31/7/07 without his knowledge and consent. The statement of account Ex.C8 has also been filed indicating debit of Rs.4816.94/- and credit card facility was given to the complainant vide application dated 10/4/06. There is also document pertaining to the bills of Rs.85.33/- and Rs.895.67/- in which it is stated that customer applied for credit card and also applied for smart-pay facility for payment of Airtel phone bills and said facility was activated from 1/6/2006 and the payments of the bills were effected through the said facility i.e. payment of bill dated 6/8/06 for Rs.85.33/- and bill dated 6/6/06 for Rs.895.67/- and further it is stated that card was subsequently invalid from further usage in November 2006 and an amount of Rs.4816.94/- was claimed from customer bank account. However, the opposite party Bank has failed to justify the deduction of amount of Rs.4816.94/- because no other bill has been produced by the opposite party Bank. We, therefore, find gross negligence and clear cut deficiency in service on the part of opposite party Bank.<br /> In the ultimate analysis of aforesaid discussion, we accept this complaint and issuedirection to the opposite parties to refund amount of Rs.3835/- ( Rs.4816.94/- minus amount of two bills i.e. Rs.85.33/- and Rs.895.67/- ) wrongly deducted and further award monetary compensation to the extent of Rs.4000/- for mental agony and physical harassment due to deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties besides cost of litigation to the extent of Rs.1000/- payable by the opposite parties to the complainant within a period of one month from the receipt of copy of this order.<br /> Let certified copies of judgment rendered be supplied/despatched to the parties without any unnecessary delay and thereafter file be consigned to record room.<br /> <br /> Announced : ( Surinder Mittal ) ( A.K. Sharma )<br /> 29.4.2008 Mermber President.