By : SMT SYEDA SHAHNUR ALI, MEMBER
The complainant filed the case against the OP Bank for non payment of a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- deposited by him with the bank. The crux of the case is that the petitioner Prabir Kumar Dey met with one Madhusudan Sharma, an employee of the HDFC Bank who visited the shop of the petitioner situated at Kaktia Bazar, Tamluk. He convinced the petitioner to take a policy. Before the Last Puja the petitioner gathered a sum of Rs. 1 lakh and being convinced by said Madhusudan Sharma he agreed to purchase a policy. The petitioner went to the OP Bank and met with their Manager Sri Sudipta Banerjee. The petitioner also states that the required business loan and bank ensured him that in case of necessity they would provide loan every time against the said policy made by the customers. On good faith petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 1 lakh and some other amounts to the Manager who made some papers with the help of Madhusudan Sharma and petitioner signed on some forms as per their request. Later on the complainant found that it was not a policy which he purchased but it was a fixed deposit made without his consent and when the petitioner requested for a loan for his business the bank authority ignored to provide him the loan. Thereafter in the month of February father of the petitioner died and petitioner requested several times to the bank to provide him a loan but in vain. On the other hand the petitioner found that the bank authority advised him to sign on some papers and which he did at that time the bank assured that presently they are liquidating the fixed deposit and later on they could continue that by providing a loan against that policy. Being dissatisfied and aggrieved the petitioner asked the bank to give him all the amount of the policy and he was not agreed to continue the policy any more, but all in vain. The petitioner also states that the OP Bank misbehaved with the petitioner and had driven him out from the bank premises with his wife and children and seized all the documents. Being astonished by such act the complainant lodged a diary on 09.09.16 with the local Police Station. Thereafter the complainant went to the office of the Bank to get back all the documents but there was no fruitful result, So, he has filed this complaint.
The OP bank entered appearance and filed written version and also filed Written notes on argument. The OP in its written version has stated that the complainant was maintaining two accounts being No. SB A/C NO. 19301000025813 and another CA A/C No. 50200017142654. The balance of the complainant in his account as on 05.10.15 was 45,000/-. Later on 07.10.15 the complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 60,000/-. From the said balance on 09.10.15 the complainant paid Rs. 75,000/- to the HDFC Life Insurance by directly transferring from his account by cheque NO. 0064236. The OP bank also states that the complainant deposited another sum of Rs. 57,000/- on 19.12.15 from where he had given FD request of Rs. 55,000/- to the OP and the said request was duly honored by the OP and fixed deposit commenced from 21.12.15 being No. 50300122966172 and maturity date was 21.12.16. The said FD was subsequently fore closed on 05.03.16 as per customer’s request and an amount of Rs. 55000/- and Rs. 620/- as interest was credited in the a/c No 19301000025813. The OP also states that said Madhusudan Sharma has not been impleaded in the instant case as such he remained unearthed. The OP has stated in it written version that the complainant has invested his money in the policy issued by the HDFC life insurance and the OP HDFC bank is admittedly a bank and only carried on banking business and is not rendering any insurance policy and as such it does not receive any premium to that effect. The OP has submitted that the complainant approached the OP Bank and expressed his requirement of investment of the amount lying in his account fetching low interest so that he can earn higher rate of interest. He was advised to invest in fixed deposit with the bank wherein the rate of interest was approximately 8 to 9 % per annum in investment in Fixed Deposit. As such there is no deficiency or any short coming of the HDFC bank in any manner whatsoever and the complaint is liable to be dismissed u/sec 26 of the Consumer Protection Act being frivolous and vexatious.
The point for consideration is(1) whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief and (2) whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the OP Bank.
Decision with Reasons.
We have seen the petition of complaint. We do not find any paper excepting the diary lodged through post which was sent on 21.09.16 to the OC of Tamluk PS , 721636. The OP bank has filed photocopy of a recurring deposit confirmation advice and statement of summary of Prabir Kumar Dey. We do not find any evidence from the side of the OP Bank nor did the OP impleaded the two persons named in the petition of complaint to justify the statement of its written version. The written version by the OP states that the HDFC bank is no way involved in the process of transaction done with customers of the HDFC life insurance. The OP in his huge long version has admitted in para 21 categorically that the accounts from where the money was transferred was held by the complainant and there is no evidence that HDFC Bank and HDFC life insurance are sister concern. It is not possible for a trader of small capital to understand the nexus and the inter connection between the two above. We are well aware that private banks mislead or misguide in collaboration with the private insurers influence the customers in availing the service and thereafter shrugs their responsibility stating that the two institutions are not related to each other and as such they have no nexus in between them. But the customers are lured by the bank that if they deposit their money lying with the bank and purchase a policy they would earn certain benefits and would earn higher interests and the customers fall prey of such allurement and face the consequence at the long run.
The OP bank has taken a plea that Madhusudan Sharma has not been impleaded in the case as a OP. the OP admits that the complainant made a policy and received the policy bond and other related papers which displayed the benefits of the policy and it also states that the complainant had the liberty to cancel his policy within the Free Lock period. But he possibly had closed the policy and took the benefit. It is very unlikely that the lay man having a business in a small town like Tamluk will be aware of all the business strategies of a Multinational Company like HDFC. It is not possible for the complainant to understand difference between the HDFC Bank and HDFC life Insurance Co as HDFC is the name attached with both the institutions and the complainant did not make much difference between the two as both are manage and administered by the HDFC. It is not possible for a common people to understand what policy is in vogue and what policy has been wound up by the Company unless it is explained to him in simple terms which has not been done by the Multinational Co. Be that as it may in the instant case the complainant has stated that he deposited a sum of Rs. 1 lakh with the HDFC Bank thinking to be a policy, moreover, the OP bank had also not taken any endeavors to bring about Madhusudan Sharma to unearth the truth. As such we are of the view that the instant case be disposed of in favour of the Complainant and against the OP Bank as there is no material to prove that complainant gave instruction to OP for making of fixed deposit in place of plicy. The OP is hereby directed to refund the sum of Rs. 1 lakh deposited with HDFC Life Insurance as the amount was debited from the Opposite Party bank and it is the deficiency of the service on the part of the OP Bank to refund the money deposited by the complainant.
Hence, it is
O R D E R E D
That the complaint case being No 257 of 2016 be and the same is allowed on contest against the OP.
The OP is directed to pay Rs 1,00,000/- to the complainant with interest at the rate of Rs. 8% per annum from the date of filing of this application till full payment together with a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as compensation towards harassment and Rs. 5000/- as litigation cost within one month from the date of this order failing the OP shall be liable to pay Rs 100/- per diem as punitive charge which would be payable to Consumer Welfare Fund.
Let copy of the judgment be supplied to all the parties free of costs.
