Haryana

Ambala

CC/108/2018

Tarsem Garg - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC Bank - Opp.Party(s)

10 Apr 2018

ORDER

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

                                                           Complaint No. 108 of 2018.

               Date of Institution: 22.03.2018.

   Date of final order: 10.04.2018.

 

1.Tarsem Garg s/o Late Sh.Inder Pal Garg

2.Sanjeev Garg s/o Tarsem Garg,

3.Vishal Garg s/o Tarsem Garg,

4,Smt.Santosh Garg s/o Tarsem Garg,

5.Anuradha Garg d/o Tarsem Garg,

6.Meenakshi Garg d/o Tarsem Garg all trustee of Maharishi Markandeshwar University Trust Mullana all r/o H.No.55, Model Town, Ambala City All trustee.

 

                                                                 .….Complainant.

                                       Versus

1. HDFC Bank Ltd. Senapati Bapat Marg, Lowel Parel, (West) Mumbai through its Managing Director Sh.Aditya Puri.
2. HDFC Bank, Mullana through its Branch Manager, Mullana, Tehsil Barara, District Ambala.

 

…..Opposite parties.

                          Complaint under section 12 of

 

Before: Sh. Dina Nath Arora, President.

    Smt. Anamika Gupta, Member.

            Sh. Pushpender Kumar, Member.   

 

Present:  Sh. Sandeep Mishra, Adv. for complainant.

                                             

ORDER

 

             Brief facts of the complaint are that Mandeep Singh employee of OPs visited the complainant to open FLC Limit which was sanctioned on 12.11.2014 for Rs.952.85 lacs (USD 1488824) with different tenure of 24 months. The employee of the bank recovered Rs.13,23,468/- towards bank charges for providing FLC limit which was to be utilized in two installments for purchase of two MRI machine. In April, 2016 delivery of MRI machine from Phillps Medical Netherland was obtained by MMU Mullana Campus but OPs backed out and demanded more extra charges on remaining amount of USD 742550 for which FLC limit was already opened. The OPs through its employee Mandeep Singh also got some blank papers signed but not released the amount for second MRI machine. Out of the total sanction of FLC $1488824 to the tune of $ 742550/-USD was to be obtained at a later date which was never given to the complainant, therefore, the complainant is entitled to get the refund of Rs. 6,60,078/- alongwith interest being excess charges paid on unused FLC $ 742550/- as Rs.15 crore was sanctioned vide letter dated 03.10.2012.  The term loan account was connected with the current account of the complainant and funds of EMI was deposited in the current account but the OPs without any reason used to credit it in loan account after few days and bank had not given the instant credit of EMI due to which the complainant has suffered financial loss. The complainant asked the bank to close the term loan account vide letter dated 04.06.2016 by pre-maturing FDR for Rs.8 crore lying with it but on 08.07.2016 the bank had only debited the loan installment to the tune of Rs.44,47,455/- from current account. The complainant has suffered loss of Rs.9,91,024/- of interest on the loan account. The OPs have failed to close the term loan account on 04.06.2016 despite several correspondence, issuance of NOC and return the property documents which have been kept by the OPs bank illegally upto 03.08.2016. Due to deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant was forced to close the account and requested the OPs to close the term loan account w.e.f. 04.06.2016 after pre-maturing the FDRs of more than Rs.8 crore lying with the OPs on 03.08.2016 closed the account and credited the FDR to current account No.50200004213938 by pre-maturing the FDRs without getting the same adjusted firstly in the loan amount for which the complainant suffered financial loss.  The complainant got served legal notice upon the Ops but to no avail. The act and conduct of the Ops clearly amounts to deficiency in service on their part.

2.             Heard.             

3.                 Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the present complaint is maintainable before this Forum and in support of his contentions he placed reliance of case law titled as Paramahamsa Foundation Trust Vs. Bharti Mobile Limited and others 2007 (2) CPJ 325  wherein it has been held that Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 2 (1) (b) Trusts Act, 1882, Section 47 and 48-Complaint by Chairman of Trust- Maintainability- Trust Deed autorised Chairman to sign all documents on behalf of Trust- Chairman also competent to prosecute proceedings on behalf of Trust- Complaint dismissed by District Forum on the ground that all trustee have not filed complaint on behalf of Trust- Appeal against- Held, dismissal not justified- Complaint is maintainable- Matter remanded for deciding on merits.

4.                A consumer has been defined in Section 2 (d) of the Act as follows

(d) consumer means any person who        

(i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose or

(ii) hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person; but does not include a person who avails of such services of any commercial purpose;

Explanation. - For the purposes of this clause, "commercial purpose" does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment

5.                A reading of the definition of the words ‘complaint’, ‘complainant’ and ‘consumer’ makes it clear that a Trust cannot invoke the provisions of the Act in respect of any allegation on the basis of which a complaint could be made. To put this beyond any doubt, the word ‘person’ has also been defined in the Act and Section 2 (m) thereof defines a person as follows :-

 (m)    person includes

 

 (i)     a firm whether registered or not

 

 (ii)    a Hindu undivided family

 

 (iii)   a co-operative society

 

(iv)    every other association of  persons  whether  registered  under  the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (21 of 1860) or not

On a plain and simple reading of all the above provisions of the Act it is clear that a Trust is not a person and therefore not a consumer. Consequently, it cannot be a complainant and cannot file a consumer dispute under the provisions of the Act.  It is clear from the pleading that Maharishi Markandeshwar University is a Trust and cannot approach to this Forum. On this point reliance can be taken from case law titled as Pratibha Pratisthan & Ors vs Manager, Canara Bank & Ors CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3560 OF 2008 decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on 07.03.2017.  The case law relied upon by learned counsel for the complainant is not applicable to the case in hand and the same is being distinguished.

6.                Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances as well as the law laid down in above cited case law, the present complaint is not maintainable before this Forum, therefore, the present compliant deserves dismissal in limine being not maintainable before the present Forum. Accordingly, the present compliant is hereby dismissed in limine with no order as to costs with a liberty to the complainant to approach competent court of law.  Exemption of time spent before this Forum is granted in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled “ Laxmi Engineering Works versus PSG Industrial Institute  (1995) 3 SCC page 583.The  complainant can take all the original documents, if any, relied upon in this case and the office is also directed to hand-over the same, if any, attached with the complaint against proper receipt & identification and after placing photocopy of the same on the case file. Copy of this order be sent as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance. 

Announced on: 10.04.2018

                                                                (D.N.Arora)

(Pushpender Kumar)  (Anamika Gupta       )       President,

Member              Member                 District Consumer Disputes                                                               Redressal Forum, Ambala