Punjab

StateCommission

A/411/2015

Vicky Malhotra - Complainant(s)

Versus

The HDFC Bank Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Gurmeet Singh

17 Feb 2017

ORDER

                                                               FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH

 

STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION,     PUNJAB

          SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.

                                     

                   First Appeal No.411 of 2015

 

                                                          Date of Institution: 17.04.2015

                                                          Order Reserved on : 16.02.2017

                                                          Date of Decision:   17.02.2017

 

Vicky Malhotra s/o Krishan Lal r/o H.No. 384, Mohalla Bahadurpur, Hoshiarpur.

 

                                                                   Appellant/Complainant                  

 Versus

 

The HDFC Bank Ltd., Sutehri Road, Hoshiarpur, through its Branch Manager.

 

                                                               Respondent/Opposite party

 

 

First Appeal against order dated 01.12.2014 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,  Hoshiarpur.

Quorum:-

          Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.

            Shri.J.S Gill, Member

         

Present:-

          For appellant                         : Sh.Gurmeet Singh, Advocate

          For respondent                      : Sh.Sunil Narang, Advocate

          . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 

 

         J.S KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER :-

         

          The appellant preferred this appeal against order dated 01.12.2014 of District Forum Hoshiarpur, partly accepting the complaint of the complainant by awarding consolidated amount of compensation and litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/-. The appellant is complainant in the original complaint before District Forum and respondent of this appeal is opposite party therein and they be referred as such hereinafter for the sake of convenience.

2.      The complainant has filed the complaint U/s 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the OP on the averments he is account holder of OP/Bank bearing account no. 1362100000609. There is locker no. 57 of complainant with OP. The account of minor Aryan son of the complainant bearing no. 1362140000736 along with FDR in his name is also with OP. FIR no. 96 dated 04.08.2009 was registered against complainant upon falsity of facts. The amounts deposited with OP/Bank are hard earned money of complainant. No amount of FDR can be seized by the bank without consent of the customer. Moreover, there was no order of any court regarding the same. The complainant is entitled to operate the account in his name and locker no. 57 as well. The complainant served legal notice dated 14.09.2011 on OP, but to no effect. No account can be freezed without the order of the competent court by the Bank. The complainant has, thus, prayed that OP be directed to allow the complainant to operate the account no. 1362100000609 and locker no. 57 as well in his name  and account no. 1362140000736 in the name of his minor son Aaryan.

3.      Upon notice, OP appeared and field written reply raising preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable. The intricate question of facts and law are involved in the present complaint, which cannot be adjudicated in the summary proceedings by the Consumer Forum, as voluminous evidence entailing cross-examination of witnesses would be required. Any deficiency in service was denied on the part of OP. On merits, it was not disputed that complainant has account with OP/Bank. This fact was admitted that complainant has locker no. 57 with OP/Bank and account. There is account in the name of his son Aaryan. As per record of the bank, there was no FDR in the name of Aaryan. The  operation of locker no. 57 was stopped on the request of police officials by the OP. The complainant has concealed this material fact from OP. Sh. Ram Kumar Sub Inspector of police station city Hoshiarpur wrote a letter to OP for freezing of account no. 13621600000609 of complainant and account no. 13621460000736 of minor son Aryan of complainant and locker no. 57 as well. The operation of locker no. 57 would be allowed to complainant with the consent of the police in their presence. Letter dated 08.08.2009 was received from SHO Police Station City Hoshiarpur for checking the locker no. 57 after breaking the same and for seizing the locker no. 57 by HDFC Bank. The police official gave copy of order to OP passed by the court of CJM, Hoshiarpur in that regard.  Locker no. 57 was broken in the presence of the complainant, Duty Magistrate, Naib Tehsildar and bank official  and photographs were also taken of this process and thereafter it was sealed. The complainant is not entitled to any compensation from OP. OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.      The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 along with copies of documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-16.  As against it; OP tendered in evidence affidavit of Sanjeev Jindal Branch Manager HDFC Bank Limited Ex.OP-1 along with copies of documents Ex.OP-2 to Ex.OP-6, affidavit of Manav Khanna Deputy Branch Manager Hoshiarpur Ex.OP-7. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum Hoshiarpur partly accepted the complaint of the complainant by virtue of order dated 01.12.2014. Dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum Hoshairpur dated 1.012.2014, the complainant now appellant, carried this appeal against the same.

5.      We have heard learned counsel for parties at considerable length and have also examined the record of the case.

6.      The order passed by District Forum declining the operation of locker no. 57 to complainant has been assailed in this appeal by  him now appellant. It was contended by counsel for appellant that locker no. 57 has been sealed and its operation seized without his consent without following proper procedure under law. The police has not taken permission from the court to seize the locker no. 57 of complainant and seizure of the locker by police official is unauthorized, contended the counsel for appellant. On the other hand, respondent argued that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OP/Bank with regard to not permitting the complainant to operate locker no. 57, as it has been done at the instance of the police authorities with the orders of court only. The record of the case has also been examined by us. Ex.C-1 is affidavit of Vicky Malhotra on the record. Ex.C-2 is legal notice sent by counsel for appellant to OP. Ex.C-3. Ex.C-4 is postal receipt. The order of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in regular bail application of complainant vide CRM No. 1753 of 2011 is Ex.C-5. Additional affidavit of complainant is Ex.C-7. Charge sheet under Section 173 Cr.PC filed against complainant by SHO Police Station Hoshiarpur is Ex.C-8. The order passed by JMIC dated 02.04.2011 is Ex.C-9 releasing Vicky Malhotra complainant on bail. Ex.C-10 and Ex.C-11 are the statement of account. Ex.C-14 is supplementary affidavit of complainant. Ex.C-15 is recovery memo regarding recovery. Ex.C-16 is also recovery memo in the above FIR from the complainant. Ex.C-17 and Ex.C-18 certified copies of statement of Sub Inspector Ram Kumar recorded in the court.

7.      To counter this evidence, OP tendered affidavit of Sanjeev Jindal Branch Manager HDFC Bank Limited Ex.OP-1, who testified that complainant has account with OP/Bank and locker no. 57. The operation of locker no. 57 has been stopped by the police authorities, because it has been sealed by means of seizure. He further stated that account of the complainant and his minor son Aryan has been freezed in addition to locker no. 57 by the police authorities. Locker no. 57 broken in the presence of complainant, Duty Magistrate, Naib Tehsildar and bank official and photographs of this process were duly taken. OP seized the above account and locker of the complainant on police request. Ex.OP-2 is order passed by JMIC Hoshiarpur granting permission to open the locker with PNB, HDFC and IDBU Banks in the name of accused Vicky Malhotra for purpose of recovery of amount alleged to be stored there to the police. It further directed to prepare inventory of currency notes. Order of District Magistrate is Ex.OP-3 in this regard deputing Executive Magistrate on duty in opening the locker. Ex.OP-4 is letter from SHO Police Station City Hoshiarpur to Manager HDFC Bank in this regard for allowing the police authorities to open the locker no. 57.  The recovery memo of currency notes are contained in a locker. It was case property in FIR No. 96 dated 04.08.2009 Ex.OP-5 against complainant. The zimni order recorded by the police is Ex.OP-7.

8.      From appraisal of above-referred evidence on the record and hearing respective submissions of counsel for the parties, we find that the currency notes and other articles were recovered when locker was opened by the police in the presence to Executive Magistrate and bank official and inventory is Ex.OP-5 prepared in this regard duly attested by Executive Magistrate signed by accused and witnesses of the bank. 11 lac currency notes were recovered  thereform, which are lying as case property in the criminal case. The locker was opened by the police by the order of the court. Counsel for respondent contended that case property of the case is deposited in the locker and in case it is allowed to be opened, the complainant would tamper with it. We agree with this contention of counsel for respondent in this appeal. We cannot interfere with the process of criminal trial continuing in competent court of law. The complainant cannot obtain any such order under CP Act from us to defeat law prevailing in the country. We do not find any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OPs with regard to refusal of operation of locker no. 57 by the complainant, as they have carried out their duty in accordance with law. There is no illegality or material infirmity in the order of the District Forum and same is affirmed in this appeal.

9.      As a result of our above discussion, we find no merit in the appeal and same is hereby dismissed by affirming the order of District Forum Hoshiarpur dated 01.12.2014 under challenge in this appeal.

10.    Arguments in this appeal were heard on 16.02.2017 and the order was reserved. Copies of the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.

11.    The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.

 

                                                                          (J. S. KLAR)

                                                          PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

                    

                                                                              (J.S GILL)

                                                                               MEMBER

 

                                                                                                         

February 17,  2017                                                             

(ravi)