Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/20/311

Krishan Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFCBank Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Gagandeep Singh

16 May 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No:  311 dated  23.11.2020.                                            Date of decision: 16.05.2024. 

 

Krishan Kumar, aged about 40 years son of Shri Baidyanath Jha, resident of House No.74, Street No.13-1/2, Ram Nagar, Bhamian Kalan, Mundian Kalan, Ludhiana.

                                                                                      ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

1. HDFC Bank Limited Division, P.O. Box No.8654, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai-600041, through its Manager/Branch Manager.
2. HDFC Bank Limited, Branch Plot and Shed No.B-XV-168/1, G.T. Road, Miller Ganj, Ludhiana, through its Manager/Branch Manager.                                                                     …..Opposite parties 

Complaint Under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Gagandeep Singh Chahal, Advocate.

For OPs                          :         Sh. Rahul Rajput, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

1.                Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that two brothers namely Alok Kumar and Veenu Kumar, sons of Sh. Shiv Kumar, resident of House No.163, Street No.13, Ram Nagar, Mundian Kalan, Ludhiana are also residing in the colony of the complainant. In November 2018, Alok Kumar came to the complainant and told him to get issued credit card of HDFC Bank for him for use of his small loan purposes. The complainant stated that he was not ready to get issue the credit card but on continuous convincing of Alok Kumar he got ready for getting credit card and handed over copy of his Aadhar Card, PAN Card, bank statements and copies of income tax returns required for issuance of credit card in his name. However, after some days, Alok Kumar told the complainant that due to some reason, credit card could not be issued in his name and bank has rejected his application. On this the complainant asked him to return his documents but Alok Kumar told that the documents are lying with HDFC Bank. The complainant further stated that on 26.06.2019, he received a call from the OPs  regarding use of his whole credit card limit and asked him to pay back an amount of Rs.1,08,000/- approximately. The complainant told the OPs that he had never received any credit card from them. On enquiry, the complainant came to know that one credit card No.4353760003463274 was issued in his name which was being used by someone else. It was further enquired that the primary mobile No.6284984768 was given in application form of credit card which was registered in name of Veenu Kumar, younger brother of Alok Kumar to whom the complainant handed over documents to get credit card in his name. The complainant further stated that Alok Kumar and Veenu Kumar had got credit card by impersonating documents given by the complainant. Even, the complainant did not sign any application form for issuance of any credit card. However, the complainant has savings accounts with the OPs bearing account No.18301000008544 at Focal Point, Ludhiana branch in which the complainant claimed to have only Rs.10,000/- which the OPs have already ceased and freezed his account. The complainant further stated that he moved a complaint with the OPs with regard to fraud  committed by Alok Kumar and Veenu Kumar with him but the OPs failed to take any action or initiate any enquiry in the matter. The complainant moved an application with the police, who after enquiry into the matter, registered FIR No.171 dated 03.10.2020, U/s.420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and Section 66-D of I.T. Act at Police Station Jamalpur, Ludhiana against Alok Kumar and Veenu Kumar. Due to act of negligence on the part of the OPs, the CIBIL score of the complainant came down and no financial institution is ready to give loan to him for expansion of his business and as such, the complainant claimed to have suffered financial loss besides mental pain, agony, harassment etc. due to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. In the end, the complainant has prayed for issuing directions to the OPs to take action against their officials who wrongly issued credit card and also not to harass him by demanding Rs.1,08,000/- used by Alok Kumar and Veenu Kumar. The complainant further prayed for issuing directions to the OPs to clear his CIBIL record and also to pay him compensation of Rs.7,65,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- besides litigation expenses of Rs.22,000/-. The complainant also prayed for issuing directions to the OPs to restore all the facilities of his savings account and to return the amount of Rs.10,000/- freezed/recovered by the OPs from said saving account.

2.                Upon notice, the OPs appeared and filed joint written statement and assailed by complaint by taking preliminary objections on the ground of maintainability; suppression of material facts; the complainant is not a consumer of the OPs; lack of jurisdiction etc. The OPs stated that in the complaint, the complainant has stated that he has already registered a case before the police regarding alleged fraud and as such, the matter in controversy cannot be decided in a summary trial. The OPs further stated that they have already reversed the entire outstanding of credit card usage and zero rise the credit card statement in the month of January 2020. Even they have reversed the amount of Rs.10519.62 put on hold by them in saving account of the complainant on 31.01.2020 and have also defreezed the account of the complainant. Moreover, the OPs have already informed the CIBIL for the correction of account of the complainant.

                   On merits, the OPs reiterated the crux of averments made in the preliminary objections. However, the OPs averred that Alok Kumar and Veenu Kumar are not their employees nor they authorized them to collect any documents on behalf of the OPs. The OPs have denied that there is any deficiency of service and have also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.                In evidence, the complainants tendered his affidavit as Ex. CA and reiterated the averments of the complaint. The complainant also placed on record documents Ex. C1 is the copy of Aadhar card of the complainant, Ex. C2 is the copy of credit card statement w.e.f. 16.01.2019 to 05.02.2019, Ex. C3 is the copy of credit card statement w.e.f. 16.03.2019 to 05.04.2019, Ex. C4 is the copy of credit card statement w.e.f 16.02.2019 to 08.03.2019, Ex. C5 is the copy of credit card statement w.e.f. 16.04.2019 to 06.05.2019, Ex. C6 is the copy of credit card statement from 16.05.2019, Ex. C7 is the copy of CardHolder Dispute Form, Ex. C8 is the copy of FIR No.171 dated 03.10.2020 and closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, the counsel for the OPs tendered affidavit  Ex. RA of Sh. Harpreet Nath, Deputy Manager of OPs Bank along with documents Ex. R1 is the copy of power of attorney, Ex. R2 is the copy of credit card statement dated 16.12.2020, Ex. R3 is the copy of  credit card statement dated 16.11.2020, Ex. R4 is the copy of HDFC Bank Credit Card CardMember Agreement and closed the evidence. 

5.                We have heard the arguments of the counsel for the parties and also gone through the complaint, affidavit and annexed documents and written statement along with affidavit and documents produced on record by both the parties.

6.                One Alok Kumar, inhabitant of the locality of the complainant approached the complainant in November 2018 for availing of credit card facility and ultimately was able to prevail upon the complainant for issuance of one credit card in his name. Alok Kumar obtained the requisite proof consisting of Aadhar Card, PAN Card, statement of income tax returns etc. After some time,  Alok Kumar informed the complainant that his case for issuance of credit card has been rejected by the bank authorities. As per the complainant, Alok Kumar did not return the documents on the pretext that the same are lying with HDFC Bank. On 26.06.2019, the complainant received call from the OPs that credit card limit has been exhausted and a sum of Rs.1,08,000/- is payable. On further enquiry, it was revealed that Alok Kumar had misused his documents and ID proofs and got a credit card issued in name of complainant by forging his signatures. He further gave mobile No.6284984768 of his younger brother Veenu Kumar to be registered with the account so to receive message alters from the bank. The complainant approached the police and got registered an FIR No.171 dated 03.10.2020, U/s.420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and Section 66-D of I.T. Act at Police Station Jamalpur, Ludhiana against Alok Kumar and Veenu Kumar.

7.                The counsel for the complainant has contended that due to negligent act of the OPs the complainant has suffered a lot in his business as well as repudiation etc. The officials of the OPs in connivance with Alok Kumar and Veenu Kumar have got issued credit card in the name of the complainant by forging his signatures and documents. The counsel for the OPs has refuted the above said contentions of the counsel for the complainant and has relied upon case decided in Complaint Case No.299 of 2016 on 21.04.2016 in Ashok Kumar Goel Vs The Branch Manager, ICICI Bank by Hon’ble Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi.

8.                Except bare allegations in the complaint and affidavit that fraud has been committed by Alok Kumar and Veenu Kumar in connivance of officials of the OPs, there is nothing on record which could connect the officials of the OPs with the commission of fraud with the complainant. On becoming aware of the said transactions, the OPs have reversed the amount of Rs.10,519/- and put on hold on the saving account of the complainant so to avoid further pilferage in the account. The OPs have also informed the CIBIL authorities for correction of status of the complainant. As such, there is no deficiency or adoption of unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Even the complainant has not impleaded Alok Kumar and Veenu Kumar as party in this complaint as allegation of alleged fraud has been leveled against them by the complainant. So the complainant has failed to discharge initial onus to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties by any cogent and convincing evidence.  The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in its judgment in SGS India Ltd. Vs Dolphin International Ltd. in Civil Appeal No.5759 of 2009 decided on 06.10.2021 (LL 2021 SC 544) by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India while relying upon on its own judgment reported as Ravneet Singh Bagga v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines & Anr. As well as Indigo Airlines v. Kalpana Rani Debbarma & Ors. (LL 2021 SC 544), has held as under:-

“19.  The onus of proof of deficiency in service is on the complainant in the complaints under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is the complainant who had approached the Commission, therefore, without any proof of deficiency, the opposite party cannot be held responsible for deficiency in service.”

Further reference can be made to The Chairman & Managing Director, City Union Bank Ltd. & Anr. Vs R. Chandramohan in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 251, whereby the Hon’ble Supreme Court has made the following observations:-

“Consumer Protection Act 1986 – The proceedings before the Commission being summary in nature, the complaints involving highly disputed questions of facts or the cases involving tortuous acts or criminality like fraud or cheating, could not be decided by the Form/Commission under the said Act. The “deficiency in service”, as well settled, has to be distinguished from the criminal acts or tortuous acts.”

9.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merits. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.        

10.              Due to huge pendency of cases, the complaint could not be decided within statutory period.

 

 

(Monika Bhagat)                              (Sanjeev Batra)               Member                                         President  

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:16.05.2024.

Gobind Ram.