Haryana

StateCommission

A/626/2015

HDFC BANK - Complainant(s)

Versus

KUMARI PALLAVI - Opp.Party(s)

TANMOY GUPTA

02 Feb 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :       626 of 2015

Date of Institution:       27.07.2015

Date of Decision :        02.02.2016

 

HDFC Bank, Agra Chowk, Palwal, Haryana, through Amit Taneja, Principal and Branch Manager. 

                                      Appellant/Opposite Party No.3

Versus

1.      Kumari Pallavi Daughter of Bhola Nath, Resident of House No.DD-88, Shyam Nagar Colony, Palwal, District Palwal, Haryana.

Respondent/Complainant

2.      ICICI Bank, Palwal through its Manager, District Palwal.

3.      State Bank of India, New Grain Market Tehsil and District Palwal, through its Manager.

                                      Respondents/Opposite Parties No.1 & 2

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Present:               Mr. Tanmoy Gupta, Advocate for appellant.

                             Kumari Pallavi-respondent No.1 in person.

                             Shri D.K. Singal, Advocate for respondent No.2.

                             Ms. Alka Joshi, Advocate for respondent No.3. 

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

HDFC Bank-Opposite Party No.3, is in appeal against the order dated 12^th November, 2014, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Palwal (for short ‘the District Forum’) in Consumer Complaint No.74 of 2013.

2.           Kumari Pallavi-complainant (respondent No.1 herein), filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the allegations that she is maintaining saving bank account No.31473501882 with State Bank of India (SBI), New Grain Market, Palwal-Opposite Party No.1 (respondent No.3). On 30^th July, 2013, she tried to withdraw Rs.10,000/- from Automated Teller Machine (ATM) of appellant/opposite party No.3. However, the transaction was not successful. Thereafter, she proceeded to ATM of ICICI Bank-Opposite Party No.2. She gave command to withdraw Rs.15,000/-, however, only Rs.10,000/- could be withdrawn and were dispensed with. Again on the second attempt, another Rs.10,000/- were withdrawn. However, the transaction slip shown withdrawal of Rs.30,000/-, though she had actually withdrawn Rs.20,000/-.

3.      The Opposite Parties contested complaint. The opposite party No.1/State Bank of India, in its reply denied any deficiency on its part or unfair trade practice. The opposite party No.3/HDFC Bank, in its reply stated that the complainant was not its consumer and that the allegations of the complainant were matter of record. The opposite party No.2/ICICI Bank did not contest the complaint and was proceeded exparte.

4.      On appraisal of the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum held the appellant/opposite party No.3, deficient in service and directed as under:-

“….Hence the complaint of the complainant is accepted against opposite party No.3 and opposite parties No.1 and 2 are exonerated of the charges and allegations. So this Forum by accepting the prayer of the complainant against opposite party No.3 directs opposite party No.3 to pay Rs.10,000/- with interest 2 9% from the date of filing of the present complaint (2.12.2013) against opposite party No.3 till its realization. Opposite party No.3 is further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation to the lady student/complainant as she has gone under trauma and has suffered her education and precious time. Opposite party No.3 is further directed to pay litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.2100/- to the complainant. Opposite Party No.3 is to comply these above directions within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order if he fails to make compliance of the order he will be further burdened with cost to the tune of Rs.10,000/-.”

5.      Learned counsel for the appellant/opposite party No.3, has assailed the order of the District Forum taking plea that the complainant in her complaint has stated that the transaction of withdrawal of the amount was not processed which means that there was no transaction between the appellant and the complainant. Therefore, the complaint against the appellant was liable to be dismissed.

6.      It is not disputed that the complainant maintained her saving bank account with SBI/opposite party No.1. It is also not disputed that the amount of Rs.30,000/- was debited from the account of the complainant on account of ATM withdrawal on 30^th July, 2013 (Exhibit R-2). It is not the case of the opposite party No.1/SBI, that the amount of Rs.30,000/- was transferred to HDFC/opposite party No.3 inter se the arrangements in between them i.e. SBI and HDFC. There is no mention in the entire written reply filed by SBI in this respect. Therefore, the liability to pay Rs.10,000/- is of the SBI and not of the HDFC/opposite party No.3.  The District Forum fell in error in imposing the liability upon the HDFC instead of SBI. It is held that the SBI/opposite party No.1, is liable to pay the amount of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant.

7.      In this view of the matter, the appeal is accepted. By modifying the impugned order, it is directed that the SBI/opposite party No.1 shall pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till its realisation. The order regarding compensation Rs.5,000 and  Rs.2,100/- on account of litigation expenses is maintained.  

8.      The statutory amount of Rs.8550/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant/Opposite Party No.3, against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced 02.02.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL