Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/415/2014

Scott Gregory Geisinger - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

In person

02 Sep 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/415/2014
Date  of  Institution	:	24/06/2014
Date   of   Decision	:	02/09/2015

 

 

 

 

 

Scott Gregory Geisinger son of Donald Wayne Geisinger, resident of House No.1136, Sector 33-C, Chandigarh.

 

….Complainant

Vs.

 

1.   The Branch Manager, M/s Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, SCO 108, Phase III-B-2, SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab.

 

2.   HSBC Asset Management (India) Pvt. Limited, through Ms. Rheitu Bansal (Vice President & Head-MF, Client Services), 16, V.N. Road, Fort, Mumbai – 400001.

 

3.   S.Subramaniam, Authorized Signatory-cum-Equity Fund Manager, HSBC Mutual Funds, CAMS BCP, Centre No.4, Nehru West, Kalapatti Main Road, CNIL Aerodrome Post, Coimbatore – 641014.

 

4.   Ramesh Bhatia, Branch Head ISC HSBC, Chandigarh, CAMS, SCO 154-155, First Floor, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh - 160017.

…… Opposite Parties

 

 

BEFORE:   SH. P.L. AHUJA               PRESIDENT

MRS.SURJEET KAUR             MEMBER

          SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA     MEMBER

 

 

For Complainant	:	Complainant in person.
For OP No.1	:	Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate.
For OP Nos.2, 3 & 4	:	Sh. Puneet Tuli, Proxy Counsel for Sh. Sandeep Suri, Advocate (OP No.2 already ex-parte).

 

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

 

 

 

          In brief, the Complainant had purchased an HSBC Tax Saver Equity Fund-Dividend, for Rs.1,00,000/-, vide Cheque No.000127 (Annexure C-1), through Kotak Investment DeskWhen all the frantic efforts made by the Complainant, failed to fructify, as a measure of last resort, alleging that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties tantamount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the Complainant has filed the instant Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking various reliefs.  

   

2.     Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties, seeking their version of the case. However, nobody appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.2 despite service, therefore, it was proceeded ex-parte on 13.02.2015.

 

3.     Opposite Party No.1 in its written statement while admitting the factual matrix of the case has pleaded that the CTS image of the Cheque bearing No.000127 for the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- in favour of HSBC Tax Saver Equity Fund was received by it in CTS clearing from HSBC Bank through National Payment Corporation of India which acts as the clearing house. Opposite Party No.1 remitted the entire amount under the said Cheque on 20.03.2014 through clearing to be credited in the account of the Payee i.e. HSBC Tax Saver Equity Fund. However, in the CTS inward clearing list i.e. the list of the Cheques which was sent to the Payee Bank by the NPCI in the said process of CTS clearing, the above mentioned Cheque was mentioned twice. As such, the answering Opposite Party cleared the said Cheque against the one of the listing and remitted the funds as mentioned above and against the other erroneous duplicated listing, an entry was posted of dishonor of the said Cheque for the reason item listed twice. Hence, the present Complaint is liable to be dismissed as the amount required under the aforesaid Cheque was duly transferred to the Opposite Party No.2 as against one of the listings of the above mentioned Cheque by RBI as per the clearing settlement process. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service on its part, answering Opposite Party has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4.     Opposite Parties No.3 & 4 in their joint written statement while admitting the factual aspects of the case, have pleaded that the Cheque submitted by the Complainant towards the investment amount i.e. Cheque No. 000127 for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was returned by the Opposite Party No.1 to the answering Opposite Parties for the reason ‘item listed twice’. On receipt of the returned Cheque the answering Opposite Parties reversed the units allotted to the Complainant on 24.3.2014. The Cheque in question along with rejection memo was couriered to the Complainant on 7.4.2014. Therefore, there was no error, omission on the part of the answering Opposite Parties. It has been asserted that the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was refunded back to the Complainant through direct credit i.e. NEFT to his bank account maintained with Kotak Mahindra Bank on 5.6.2014, thus the Complainant had not suffered any loss on this count. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service on their part, answering Opposite Parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

5.     The Complainant also filed separate replications to the respective written statements filed by the Opposite Parties No.1, 3 & 4, wherein the averments as contained in the complaint have been reiterated and those as alleged in the written statement by the Opposite Parties No.1, 3 & 4 have been controverted.

 

6.     Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record in support of their contentions.

 

7.     We have heard the Complainant in person and learned Counsel for Opposite Parties No.1, 3 & 4 (Opposite Party No.2 being ex-parte) and have perused the record along with the written arguments filed on behalf of Complainant as well as Opposite Parties No.1, 3 & 4.  

 

8.     It is observed that Opposite Party No.4 is the Collecting Branch for Opposite Party No.2 and is receiving the payment for and on behalf of Opposite Party No.2. Thus, Opposite Party No.4 is collecting funds for and on behalf of HSBC Global Assets Management Mutual Funds Investment i.e. Opposite Party No.2.

 

9.     We further find that Opposite Party No.4 had sent the Cheque of the Complainant collected by the Opposite Party No.2 for Rs.1,00,000/- to the Opposite Party No.1, through National Payment Corporation of India (clearing house) and the entire amount of Cheque was remitted in the account of Opposite Party No.2 maintained with Opposite Party No.4.

 

10.     It is also observed that in the CTS inward clearing list (the list of the cheques which is sent to the payee bank by the NPCI) the said Cheque details were mentioned twice. As such, Opposite Party No.1 cleared the said Cheque against one of the listing and remitted the funds, and against the other erroneous duplicated listing, an entry was posted of dishonor of the said Cheque for the reason “item listed twice”.

 

11.     During the internal reconciliation made by the Opposite Party No.4 on 30.5.2014, it was found that a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was received from the Complainant’s Bank (Opposite Party No.1). Hence, Opposite Party No.4 is found to be deficient in service with regard to intimating the Complainant that the Cheque has been dishonoured; whereas the Opposite Party No.4 was in receipt of the funds as remitted by the Opposite Party No.1. Opposite Party No.1 is also found to be deficient as they have given wrong information to Opposite Party No.4 on the second entry of the Cheque that the Cheque has been dishonoured due to double entry; whereas, Opposite Party No.1 should have given the correct information with regard to the second entry of the Cheque that the Cheque has already been honoured and payment has already been remitted by the Bank (Opposite Party No.1) to the Opposite Party No.4.

 

12.     The Opposite Parties No.3 and 4 have urged that the Complainant is a U.S. national and as per the HSBC investment documents US nationals are not allowed to make investments in the HSBC Mutual Funds. This objection of the Opposite Parties No.3 & 4 is not substantiated as Opposite Party No.2 had already allotted the units to the Complainant and cancelled the same due to non-reconciliation of the account of Opposite Party No.4. Opposite Party No.2 is ex-parte and evidence against it has gone unrebutted. Hence, Opposite Parties No.2, 3 and 4 are found to be deficient as they issued the HSBC Tax Saver Equity Fund without following the guidelines pertaining to making of investment in HSBC Mutual Funds. However, no relief on allotment of units by the Opposite Party No.2 can be granted to the Complainant by this Forum at this belated stage, as the financial year 2013-2014 ended on 31.03.2014.     

 

13.     In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Parties are deficient in giving proper service to the complainant and have indulged in unfair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties, and the same is allowed, qua them. The Opposite Parties are directed, jointly & severally, to:-

 

[a]  To pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony & harassment suffered by the complainant;

 

[b]  To pay Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation.

 

14.     The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @12% p.a. on the amount mentioned in sub-para [a] above from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, besides complying with the directions as in sub-para [b] above. 

 

15.     The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

02^nd September, 2015                                

Sd/-

(P.L. AHUJA)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

MEMBER

 “Dutt”