Date of filing : 07.06.2010<br /> Date of Order: 02.11.2010<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> Dated: 2ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2010<br /> <br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> <br /> Sri. BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 1285 OF 2010<br /> <br /> Mr. S.Prasad,<br /> S/o Shivandappa,<br /> No.25, 2nd Cross, Sudhama Nagar,<br /> Bangalore-27. Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> <br /> <br /> 1.The Manager,<br /> HDFC Bank Ltd.,<br /> Ground Floor and 1st Floor,<br /> Samskruthi Chambers,<br /> No.103, K.H.Road Branch,<br /> Bangalore-27.<br /> Rep. by its Branch Manager.<br /> <br /> 2.HDFC Bank Ltd.,<br /> HDFC Bank Cards Division,<br /> No.8, Laattice bridge Road,<br /> Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai-600041.<br /> <br /> 3.HDFC Bank Ltd.,<br /> Regd. Off. HDFC Bank House,<br /> Senapathi Bapat Marg,<br /> Lower Parel (West),<br /> Mumbai-400013. Opposite parties<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.<br /> The brief facts of the case are that, the complainant had maintained current account with the opposite party Bank and the bank issued credit card. On 23-1-2010 a sum of Rs.19,481/- had been withheld from the complainant’s account without any reason without consent of the complainant. The complainant demanded explanation from the opposite party. Holding of funds and withdrawing the amount from the petitioners account is high handed, illegal and unauthorized. The complainant called legal notice. Thereafter, Rs.19,958/- has been credited to the account of the complainant. The opposite party admitted the mistake by their letter 15-3-2010. Therefore, the complainant claimed Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental tension, agony and hardship. <br /> 2. The opposite party had filed defense version, stating that on receipt of particular cheque the opposite party had issued a letter on 15-3-2010, stating that there are no dues from the complainant. The complainant had approached the Banking Ombudsman. This fact has been suppressed by the complainant. The opposite party submitted that sum of Rs.19,958/- was reversed to the complainant’s account. Hence, the opposite party prayed to dismiss the complaint. <br /> 3. The complainant has filed his affidavit evidence. The respective parties have filed documents. Arguments are heard.<br /> 4. The points for consideration are:<br /> 1. Whether the opposite party had committed deficiency of service?<br /> 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the compensation? <br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> 5. It is undisputed fact, that the complainant has current account with the opposite party Bank and he is also credit card holder of the opposite party Bank. It is also admitted fact that the opposite party bank withholds an amount of Rs.19,958/- from the account of the complainant. The complainant had filed his complaint before the Banking Ombudsman. The Banking Ombudsman after issuing notice to the opposite party Bank pass orders on 22-3-2010, stating that the issue has been resolved by the opposite party Bank and therefore, the complaint treated as closed under clause 11(1) of the Banking Ombudsman scheme 2006. The opposite party bank had also given letter on 15-3-2010 to the complainant stating that they have arranged to refund lien amount of Rs.19,958/- to the complainant’s account and the opposite party bank confirmed that there was no dues payable on the credit card account and the credit card has been invalidated from further usage. So in view of letter of the opposite party bank the matter has been resolved. Even in the defense version also the bank clearly stated that there were no dues from the complainant. Therefore, no further issues are pending. The bank had addressed the grievances of the complainant. The complainant had rightly filed his complaint before the Banking ombudsman which is a proper authority to address the grievances of the customers of bank. The Banking Ombudsman working under Banking Ombudsman scheme 2006, formulated by the RBI had also informed the complainant that issue has been resolved and complaint treated as closed. Therefore, under these circumstances there is nothing to be resolved by this complaint. The complainant has not disclosed if the steps taken by him and filing complaint before the Banking Ombudsman. Admittedly, Banking Ombudsman has passed order on 22-3-2010 and the complainant has filed the present complaint on 7-6-2010, after the order of the Banking ombudsman. But, unfortunately he has not disclosed all these facts in his complaint. Therefore, the complainant is guilty of suppressing the facts. However, the issue has been resolved and the amount had been reversed back to the account of the complainant. Therefore, the present complaint deserves to be closed since there is no dispute between the parties. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:- <br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> 6. The complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs. <br /> 7. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> 8. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 2ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2010. <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> We concur the above findings<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER<br />