Haryana

StateCommission

A/1196/2014

HDFC Bank - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Hardcore Spring Steel (India) Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

10 Nov 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

 

 

First Appeal No.1196 of 2014

Date of the Institution:15.12.2014

Date of Decision: 10.11.2016

 

1.      HDFC Bank, Bhiwani through its Branch Manager.

2.      HDFC Bank, Branch Office Kashmiri Gate, Delhi.

                                                          .….Appellants/Opposite parties No.5 & 6

Versus

1.      M/s Hardcore Spring Steel (India) Ltd., Plot No.104 to 106, Sector-21,  Industrial Area, Bhiwani, through its authorized signatory.

                                                                   ….Respondent No.1/complainant

2.      Punjab National Bank having its Regd. Office Cama Place, New Delhi through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director.

3.      The Senior Manager, Punjab National Bank, Main Branch Loharu Road, Bhiwani, Tehsil and District Bhiwani.

4.      The Senior Manager, Punjab National Bank, Branch Office MIDC, Hingna Road, Nagpur-140016.

5.      M/s Nutan Suppliers, P-97, MIDC, Nagpur.

                             .….Respondents No.2 to 4/opposite parties No.2 to 4

CORAM:    Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member

                    Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.Sumit Narang, Advocate counsel for the appellant.

Mr.Ramender Chauhan, Advocate counsel for the respondent  No.1.

Mr. N.K. Mankotia, Advocate counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4.

Mr. Nitin Gupta, Advocate counsel for respondent No.5

 

O R D E R

URVASHI AGNIHOTRI, MEMBER:

 

1.      HDFC Bank – opposite party Nos.5 & 6 (for short  ‘OPs’) are in appeal against the Order dated 05.11.2014 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhiwani (for short ‘District Forum’), whereby the complaint of M/s Hardcore Spring Steel (India) Ltd.- Complainant has been allowed and OP Nos.5 & 6 have been directed to pay Rs.1,57,357/- alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. to the complainant and further to pay Rs.2,200/-  on account of litigation charges.

2.      Briefly stated the complainant was manufacturer of steel strips and as per requirement he supplies the material. He received demand order from OP No.4 and goods were supplied as per invoice. Thereafter, OP No.3 issued a bank draft bearing No.005300007 dated 22.08.2007 for a sum of Rs.1,17,357/- in favour of complainant. It was alleged by the complainant that the draft has been paid to Amit Kumar  by mis-representation for which complainant was not entitled.  Complainant made several representations to Banking Ombudsman for Maharashtra and Goa, but, OPs did not pay any heed. Thus, the OPs were deficient in service and the complainant claimed Rs.1,17,357/- along with interest, compensation and litigation expenses. 

3.      O.P.Nos.4 & 5 were proceeded ex parte vide order dated 12.07.2010 and 03.07.2014 respectively.

4.      In reply, OP Nos.1 to 3 submitted that the bank draft for a sum of Rs.1,17,357/- issued by OP No.3 was presented for clearance by OP No.5 on 05.09.2007 in the branch of OP No.2. Payment of abovesaid bank draft was made to OP No.6 on 05.09.2007 after verification of signature of authorized officer of the bank. It was further submitted that the said bank draft was issued in favour of complainant and Amit Kumar who was having an account with OP No.5, collected the payment fraudulently, whereas OP No.5 opened bank account of Amit Kumar without complying with KYC norms. FIR No.453 dated 11.08.2009 was registered against Amit Kumar in P.S City, Bhiwani. Objections about estoppel, maintainability, cause of action, non-joinder and misjoinder of necessary parties etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint.

5.      OP No.6 filed separate written statement and submitted that demand draft in question was issued by issued by OP No.3 and presented before OP No.5 for clearance on 05.09.2007 in the branch of OP No.2. Payment of abovesaid bank draft was made to OP No.6 on 05.09.2007 after verification  and signature of authorized officer of the bank. OP No.6 worked as an agent, so there is no deficiency in service on it’s part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 6.     The learned District Forum, however, agreeing with the complainant allowed the complaint by directing the OPs to pay Rs.1,57,357/- alongwith interest @12% p.a. and Rs.2200/- as litigation charges.

7.      We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. From its perusal stand established that the complainant M/s Hardcore Spring Steel (India) Ltd. obtained a bank draft by way of the value of the goods, issued by Jaipur Golden Transport Company. The complainant sent the draft to the OP Bank, but the same was paid by the OP No.2 to one Amit Kumar by misrepresentation. As the OP-2 did not pay the amount to the complainant he approached the District Forum, Bhiwani for the recovery of the amount of the Bank Draft.

8.      In fact, the bank draft had been issued by PNB MIDC Hingna Road, Nagpur, which was presented for clearance by HDFC bank to PNB Laharu Road, Bhiwani on 05.09.2007. The payment of the bank draft was made on that very day i.e. 05.09.2007 to some Amit Kumar, who was having an account with HDFC Bank and had collected the payment fraudently. It is also established on record that HDFC Bank had open the account of Amit Kumar without complying with KYC Norms, in which the identity and residential premises are required to be verified.  When the PNB came to know about the fraud having been committed by Amit Kumar in connivance with the official of the Bank, FIR No.453 was lodged in Police Station, Bhiwani on 11.08.2009. Obviously, deficiency in service is visible on the part of the HDFC Bank in opening the account of Amit Kumar without complying with the KYC Norms issued by the Reserve Bank of India and again. Without the active connivance of the officials of the OPs fraud could not be committed by Amit Kumar in obtaining the Bank Draft by misrepresentation.

9.      Consequently we fully agree with the decision of the learned District Forum and we uphold the same by dismissing the appeal and by directing the HDFC bank to pay Rs.1,17,357/- - the amount of the bank draft, a sum of Rs.40,000/- by way of compensation for mental agony, physical harassment and financial loss suffered by the complainant along with 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization as also a sum of Rs.2200/- as litigation expenses.    

10.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.

November 10th, 2016

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

 

R.K.