Judgment dated 27-7-2016

            This is a complaint made by one Smt. Manju Mukherjee of 1/8 Prince Gulam Mohammad Road, P.S. Tollygunge against Branch Manager, HDFC Bank Ltd., 112A,Rashbehari Avenue, Tollygunge. The Manager, HDFC Bank Ltd., Credit Card division. Thiuvanmiyur, P.O.-Chennai-600041 and HDFC Bank Ltd. 110, Neison Manickom Road, Aminijikarai, Chennai, praying for refund of Rs.73,000/-, Rs.20,000/- for harassment and mental agony and Rs.27,000/- as litigation cost and also for injunction restraining OPs in withdrawing or making any adjustment of any amount from their fixed Deposit A/C.

            Facts in brief are that Complainant has one Saving Bank Account at HDFC Bank, Rashbehari Avenue Branch. HDFC sold an insurance plan to the Complainant on 12-02-2009 on an annual premium of Rs.30,000/-. It was agreed that premium amount would be paid after deducting Rs.2,500/- per month. This continued till 7-09-2010. Thereafter, HDFC Bank issued a credit card in the name of Complainant for channelizing the premium payment. Complainant shifted to Kenya in October, 2010 and live there up to October, 2014. After that Complainant found that HDFC Bank have deducted an amount of Rs.1,63,306/-. But they have paid only Rs.90,000/- to the insurance policy and the policy lapsed. Complainant observed that from October, 2010 HDFC Bank reduced auto debit per month. HDFC credit card department called the Complainant and ask for payment of outstanding amount which comprises of substantial amount of finance charges. They also threatened dire consequences. Complainant never agreed to pay financial charges. Complainant was told that since she opted for auto debit minimum amount was realized and as such financial charges were levied. So, Complainant filed this case.

            OPs filed written version and denied all the allegation of Complainant. The contention of OP is any dispute has to be resolved through arbitration and no Court other than CHENNAI Court has jurisdiction. Further their contention is that since Complainant choose auto debit, minimum amount option the financial charges were levied and the allegation of Complainant is baseless. So, OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

            Decision with reasons.

            Complainant filed affidavit-in-chief where she has reiterated the facts mentioned in the petition. OPs also filed evidence where they have denied the allegation and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. Complainant has filed questionnaire against the evidence of OP where Complainant has asked for the documents which was signed by her reflecting auto debit. OPs have replied to the questionnaire but could not convince the Complainant that Complainant was made to understand that only minimum amount would be debited.

            OPs have filed additional evidence on affidavit, where they have alleged that it was known to the Complainant that minimum amount would be debited.

            In the questionnaire against the additional evidence of OP Complainant has raised the point that auto debit was activated arbitrarily by the Bank.

            Main points for determination in whether Complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for.

            First prayer of Complainant is refund of excess amount of Rs.73,000/-. In this regard it appears that OPs have debited amount from the Savings Bank Account which consist of financial charges.

            These financial charges were levied on the basis of option of auto debit allegedly exercised by OP to which Complainant deny.

            OPs used to deduct Rs.2,500/- per month. But suddenly after providing credit card they started deducting less amount which created the dispute.

            There is no denial that Complainant was at Kenya during the period when OP took advantage of auto debit option. True it is that the form of credit card reveals that auto debit option includes minimum amount deduction. But such options prejudice the Complainant because his allegation is that he did not consent to it in writing.

            There is no dispute that the complainant has Fixed Deposit Account with OP and he maintained sufficient balance which is clear on perusal of affidavit-in-chief of both the parties.

Questionnaire filed therein and reply of those questionnaires was filed. So, it becomes the duty of the Banker to make the customer aware in case of auto debit option. Complainant would be suffering because financial charges would be levied which was not at all done by the Banker.

            The relationship of Banker and Customer is a fiduciary relationship and the trust has to be reflected on both the sides. Here OP being well aware of the fact that Complainant would be suffering loss, did not make attempt to convince Complainant in not exercising auto debit option. So, they contributed to the negligence, if any, committed by the Complainant.

            As such, Bank is also liable in the loss of Complainant and, therefore, justice requires that Bank will have to refund Rs.50,000/- to the Complainant because being an institution they are not supposed to misguide the customer. Complainant will have to suffer to the extent of Rs.23,000/- because she any how opted for auto debit.

            The prayers for compensation and litigation cost cannot be justified in the background of discussion made above.

            Hence,

O R D E R E D

            CC/3/2015 and the same is allowed in part on contest. OPs are directed to refund Rs.50,000/- to the Complainant within two months of this order by an A/C payee cheque or by crediting in the Savings Account of the Complainant, in default this amount shall carry 12% interest p.a. after two months of this order.

            Other prayers of Complainant are hereby dismissed on contest.