Delhi

New Delhi

CC/299/2011

Sanjeev Lamba - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. HSBC Bank Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

17 Nov 2022

ORDER

 

 

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-VI

(NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN,

I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.299/2011

                        

In the matter of:

 

Mr. Sanjeev Lamba

4/226, Subhash Nagar,

New Delhi-110027                                                        .......Complainant                   

 

Vs.

 

1.The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited

(HSBC) No. 96, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai,

Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004

 

2.The Zonal Sales Manager

The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited

(HSBC) The Regional Office, Delhi, 25,

Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001

 

3. Ms. Satinder Kaur Country Head,

The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited (HSBC) No. 96,

Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai. Mylapore,

Chennai - 600 004                                                         ....Opposite Parties

 

 

Quorum:

Ms. Poonam Chaudhry, President

Shri Bariq Ahmad , Member

         

                                                                                                                                  Date of Institution : 15.03.2011                                                                                                                                                                         Date of Order         :17.11.2022

O R D E R

POONAM CHAUDHRY, PRESIDENT.

1. The present complaint has been filed under Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Complainant has an account in Opposing Party no. 1/ Bank since 2007.
2. It is further alleged Opposite Party No. 1 is a reputed Muti national bank, Opposite Party No. 1 whereas opposite party No. 2 is the Delhi Regional Office of the opposite Party No. 1, which is being sued through its head, Zonal Sales Manager. Opposite party No. 3 is the Country Head of Opposite Party No. 1.
3. It is further alleged that complainant had availed Overdraft facility, called as FLEXI-FINANCE A/C (Account No. 052-817996-001), provided by opposite party no. 1 since 2007.
4. It is also alleged that the complainant issued Cheque No. 054627 dated February 15, 2010 in favour of Mrs. Divya Mathur for Rs. 78251- (Rupees Seven Thousand Eight Hundred Twenty Five Only). However complainant came to know on 20th February, 2010 from payee that the abovesaid cheque had been returned unpaid as the complainant's account had been blocked. It is alleged that there was credit in the complainant's account of Rs. 11,089.02 (Rupees Eleven Thousand Eighty Nine and paise two only) at the time..
5. It is further alleged Opposite party no. 1 had never intimated the complainant about blockage of his account of complainant, which amounts to gross negligence and complete arbitrariness on opposite party's part.
6. It is also alleged that the complainant contacted Customer care and spoke with one Ms. Geeta and Mr. Coswil, who told him a courier was sent to the complainant.  It is alleged that the no letter was  received by the complainant.
7. It is also alleged the complainant received a mail from Opposite Party No. 1 on 23.02.2010 that due to some arbitrary change in credit policies, Opposite Party No. 1 had closed the Flexi Finance facility and customers were being provided an option to convert such facility to Personal loan or current account. Opposite Party No. 1  also informed that it had sent two couriers to the complainant, one on October 31, 2009 and another on January 13, 2010 intimating the complainant about conversion of Flexi Finance Account to Personal Loan Account and blocking of account.
8. It is alleged that Opposite Party No. 1 violated all codes and principles of banking by converting the complainant's Flexi Finance Account to a Personal Loan Account and blocking his account without intimation.
9. It is alleged that Opposite Party No.1 has acted in arbitrary manner on an earlier occasion also where the complainant's limit of Rs. 5.50 lacs was reduced to Rs. 4.30 Lacs without intimation to the complainant.
10.  It is also alleged that the complainant had issued the cheque in favour of Ms. Shobha Mathur vide cheque no. 435799 dated 15th January 2009 amounting Rs. 7825/- The complainant was shocked to know that the above mentioned cheque was returned unpaid On 21 January 2009. This information was given to complainant only on 23th January 2009 when the complainant received a call from HSBC that the complainant account is overdrawn by Rs. 8000/- the reason was given that the limit of the account was reduced from Rs. 5,50,000/- to 4,30,023,22/. It is submitted that the O.P. No. 1 has never informed the complainant about reduction of limit it was done arbitrarily.
11.  It was prayed that OP be directed to pay charges of Rs. 19,00,000/- (Rupees Nineteen Lakh) with interest @ 12% p.a. till payable to OP. He also restrained from reducing or enhancing the limit arbitrarily.
12. Written statement filed by OP opposing the complainant stating that the complainant has approached the opposite party bank for issuance of an overdraft credit facility. In pursuance to the request the opposite party bank entered into an agreement for grant of the said credit facility. The Personal Loan Overdraft Credit (PLOC) PLOC account bearing no. 052-817996-001, was accordingly opened in favour of the complainant in 2007, which had an overdraft credit limit of Rs. 5,50,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh Fifty Thousand) . The complainant had the facility to withdraw any sum upto the credit limit of the overdraft account. As per agreement the sum withdrawn was required to be repaid in the account at an agreed rate of interest.
13. It was also alleged that as per the terms and conditions of the facility, the complainant had agreed that the overdraft sanction may be kept open at the discretion of the Bank and that the Bank may, at its sole discretion, recall the facility at any time. The complainant had further agreed that the overdraft facility shall be in nature of a continuing credit facility valid, at the sole discretion of the Bank, for a period of 12 months commencing from the October 2007 and may be renewed thereafter on an annual basis on such terms and conditions, as the Bank may decide, at its sole discretion.
14. It was also alleged that in the year 2009, to de-risk the PLOC portfolio, the Bank decided to convert the outstanding PLOC limits of customers to Personal Installment Loan (PIL). Under the exercise written intimations were issued to all such customers to complete the legal documentation for PLOC to PIL conversion or to pay off the entire PLOC outstanding and not opt for conversion to PIL.
15. That in pursuance to the aforesaid initiative the complainant was issued a letter dated 15 October and 30 October 2009. The letter dated 30 October 2009 was dispatched through overnite courier vide AWB # 450758566 which was duly delivered to the complainant on 2 Nov 2009. The communications issued to the complainant duly highlighted that, the PLOC account will be converted into a Personal Installment Loan (PIL) account as there was a debit balance of INR 58,444.25/- (Rupees Fifty Eight Thousand Four Hundred Forty Four and Twenty Five Paise) in the account and the complainant was requested not to issue any payments from this account. The copy of the letter dated 15 and 30 October 2009 and service proof from courier agency confirming delivery of the consignment is Annexure-B and B1.
16. It was also alleged that in pursuance to the change in policy, the credit limit of the complainant’s PLOC account was also decreased to the limit of funds utilized by him in his accounts. That pursuant to the decrease of limit, the complainant paid off the dues against his facility and his account was closed on system in April 2010. The complainant had a credit balance of INR 11089.02 in his account, which was refunded to him vide a Cashier Order bearing number 351233 on 03 April 2010.
17. It was also that there was no deficiency on the part of the opposite party Bank as no cause of action exists in favour of the complainant,  against the opposite party Bank.
18. We have heard the Ld. counsels for parties and perused the material on record.
19.  It was admitted by the OP that complainant had availed Overdraft facility, called as FLEXI-FINANCE A/C (Account No. 052-817996-001), since 2007, The Personal Loan Overdraft Credit (PLOC) PLOC account, which had an overdraft credit limit of Rs. 5,50,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh Fifty Thousand)  and complainant had the facility to withdraw any sum upto the credit limit of the overdraft account.
20. It is the case of the complainant that the complainant issued Cheque No. 054627  dated February 15, 2010 in favour of Mrs. Divya Mathur for Rs.78251- (Rupees Seven Thousand Eight Hundred Twenty Five Only). However complainant came to know on 20th February, 2010 from payee that the abovesaid cheque had been returned unpaid as the complainant's account had been blocked. It is alleged that there was credit in the complainant's account of Rs.11,089.02 (Rupees Eleven Thousand Eighty Nine and paise two only) at the time. It is further alleged Opposite party no. 1 had never intimated the complainant about blockage of his account of complainant. It is contended by the counsel for OP that in the year 2009, to de-risk the PLOC portfolio, the Bank decided to convert the outstanding PLOC limits of customers to Personal Installment Loan (PIL) and written intimations were issued to all such customers to complete the legal documentation for PLOC to PIL conversion or to pay off the entire PLOC outstanding and not opt for conversion to PIL.
21. There is no document on record to show that OP had served the letters dated 15^th October 2009 and 30^th October 2009 on the complainant. The said act of OP amounts to deficiency of service, as OP without intimation to complainant converted the POLC account of complainant to PIL account. Hence, A cheque dated 15.02.2010 had been returned unpaid as the complainant's account had been blocked. The Personal Loan Overdraft Credit (PLOC) PLOC account, which had an overdraft credit limit, overdraft involve providing coverage when an account unexpectedly has insufficient funds, avoiding embarrassment and "returned check" charges from merchants or creditors. The OP bank indulged in malpractices as OP without intimation & declaration to complainant converted the POLC account of complainant to PIL account.. It is essential for the OP bank that  Banks should take suitable precautions to avoid irregular practices.
22.  We accordingly hold that OP is liable to pay compensation of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) to the complainant and cost of litigation of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) within 30 days of receipt of the order, failing which OP will be liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a. on the awarded amount till realization.

Copy of order be given/sent to all parties free of cost.

Order be uploaded on the website of the Commission

File be consigned to record room with a copy of order.

 

                                      (POONAM CHAUDHRY)

                                        President

     (BARIQ AHMAD)

    Member