Tripura

StateCommission

A/29/2021

Sri Narayan Prasad Dasgupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

The General Manager, HDFC Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. Pulak Saha, Mr. Indrajit Bhowmik

27 Jun 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

TRIPURA: AGARTALA

 

CASE NO.A.29 OF 2021

 

           Sri Narayan Prasad Dasgupta,

           S/O – Late Banamali Dasgupta,

           Radhanagar, P.O-Agartala,

           P.S – West Agartala, Dist- West Tripura. 

                                       ….. Appellant.

 

 

Versus

 

1. The General Manager,

HDFC Bank,

Head Office at 6/242,

Senapati Bapat Margh,

Lower Parel, P.S. Worli,

Mumbai-400 013

 

2. The Branch Manager,

HDFC Bank,

Math Chowmuhani Branch,

Shivnagar, College Road,

          Agartala, West Tripura.                          

…. Respondents.

                  

 

BEFORE

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH

PRESIDENT

DR. CHHANDA BHATTACHARYYA

&

MR. KAMALENDU BIKASH DAS

MEMBERS

 

For Appellant(s)                       :         Mr. P. Saha, Advocate

 

 

For Respondent(s)                    :         Mr. M.K.Arya, Advocate  

 

 

                                                                                                                         

Date of hearing and                           

delivery of judgment

& order                                    :         27.06.2022

 

Whether fit for reporting           :         No

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

 

 

 

 

                   Heard Mr. P. Saha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. M. K. Arya, learned counsel appearing for HDFC Bank-respondent.

 

2.                Facts in brief, are that the appellant lodged a complaint before the learned District Commission raising his grievance that the respondent-bank had harassed him un-necessarily. In the complaint, it is stated that one day he received a message from the bank that the complainant had to pay Rs.2,347/- for not maintaining minimum balance in his account. After receipt of this message, the complainant-appellant visited the bank and requested the authority concerned to close his account. The bank authority asked him to pay the said amount so that he could close the account. Accordingly, the complainant-appellant had paid that amount and he was informed that his account was closed. All on a sudden, after a lapse of one year he received another message asking him to pay penalty accrued out of his account. The complainant visited the bank and apprised the bank authority that his account had already been closed about a year back. But the bank authority had told him that at first, he had to pay the penalty, then, the question of closing the account would arise. The complainant had left the bank and filed the instant complaint. The complainant has been receiving such messages from the bank for payment of penalty in each and every month.

 

3.                Mr. Arya, learned counsel appearing for the bank has submitted that the complainant-appellant had taken a loan against his credit card. After perusal of the records, we find that the bank has not taken any plea and has not adduced any evidence that the complainant-appellant had taken a loan from the bank against his credit card. Contrary thereto, it is the specific stand of the complainant-appellant that he never prayed for any credit card and no credit card was issued in favour of him. So, there was no question of taking loan by him against any credit card.

 

4.                We have given our thoughtful considerations to the submissions advanced by learned counsels appearing for the parties. According to us, when it is admitted that the bank had sent a message initially to pay Rs.2,347/- for not maintaining minimum balance in his account, which he paid to the bank and requested the bank to close the account, then, the subsequent demand for payment of penalty is unwarranted. Accordingly, we find serious deficiency in service on the part of the bank for which the complainant-appellant is entitled to get appropriate compensation for the harassment and mental agony he suffered.

 

5.                Accordingly, we direct the bank to pay Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand) as compensation to the complainant-appellant for causing un-necessary harassment to him and further, for mental agony a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only is awarded.

 

6.                As a sequel, the appeal preferred by the complainant is allowed in the above terms. The judgment of learned District Commission is erroneous and thus, set aside and quashed.

                        It is made clear that the above awarded compensation shall be paid to the complainant-appellant within 1 (one) month from the date the appellant shall furnish the copy of this judgment to the respondent-bank, otherwise, it shall carry interest @ 7% per annum.