Haryana

Karnal

CC/280/2024

Anil Kumar Mann - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Ms. Seema Bhardwaj

07 Jun 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No. 280 of 2024

                                                          Date of instt.04.06.2024

                                                          Date of Decision 07.06.2024

 

Anil Kumar Mann son of Shri Satyawan Mann, resident of H.No.208, Gali No.2-A, Kunjpura Road, R.K.Puram, Karnal.

                                                 …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Ground Floor, Unit No.GF-7, Block-2, Vatika Business Park, Village Badshahpur, Sona Road, Gurgaon 122002 through its M.D.

                                                                    …..Opposite party

 

      Complaint u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh…….…President   

      Sh.Vineet Kaushik ………..Member

      Dr. Suman Singh…………..Member

 

 Present: Mrs.Seema Bharadwaj, counsel for complainant.

                                        

                (Jaswant Singh President)

 

ORDER:                    

 

                Complaint presented today. It be checked and registered.

2.                    The complainant has filed the present complaint u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’) on the averments that complainant is having a saving account No.0713562154 with the OP bank since 2018 and has been operating the said account regularly. On 06.01.2024, the bank account of the complainant has been blocked without any reason and when the complainant contacted the OP and requested to restore his account but neither they restored his account nor gave any reason for blocking his account. The complainant got served a legal notice dated 07.05.2024 through his counsel and after receiving the said notice, they gave evasive reply and needful has not been done. In this way, there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP. Hence, the present complaint.

3.             Arguments on the point of admissibility of complaint heard. Record perused. 

4.             Learned counsel for complainant has argued the saving account of the complainant has been blocked by the OP without any reason and rhyme and despite repeated requests by the complainant, they did not restore the saving account of the complainant and this act of the OP amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and lastly prayed for issuing notice to the OPs.   

5.             The complainant has alleged that his account has been blocked by the OP and when he contacted the OP neither the restore his account nor gave any reason but on perusal of the reply to the legal notice of the OP wherein the reason of blocking of the account has been specifically mentioned, which is reproduced as under:-

“Account of your client was marked freeze pursuant to notice dated 06.01.2024, under Section 91 and 102 Cr.P.C. from Inspector of Police, South East CEN Police Station, HSR Layout Bengaluru in complaint No.CEN PS Cr.No.1510/2023. 66 (C), 66 (d) of IT Act,419, 420 of IPC, wherein it was directed to us to mark freeze in the bank account of your client. Basis the above referred direction from Inspector of Police, South East CEN Police Station, we have marked debit in furtherance of the compliance from Law Enforcement Agency.”     

6.             The account of the complainant has been freezed by the OP on the direction of Inspector of Police, vide notice dated 06.01.2024, under Section 91 and 102 Cr.P.C., thus, the complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, is not maintainable. The efficacious remedy available with the complainant is to approach before the competent Court of law.    

7.             Thus, in view of the above discussion, the present complaint is devoid of merits and deserves to be dismissed and same is hereby dismissed in limine. No order as to costs. Parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and file be consigned to the record room.

Announced
Dated: 07.06.2024                                

                                                                    President,     

District Consumer Disputes

Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

              (Vineet Kaushik)          (Dr. Suman Singh)        

                  Member                          Member