Order by:

Sh.Mohinder Singh, Brar, Member

1.           The complainant has filed the instant complaint under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 on the allegations that the complainants have a joint account bearing no.50100497085007 in Opposite Party’s bank. The complainants have a few shares in physical form. The shares are also of HDFC and complainants need it to be converted to demat. About six months ago, complainants requested the Opposite Party’s bank to open a joint demat account in the name of Navraj Singh and Jatinder Kaur. Complainants provided all the required documents time to time, which were required to open the account to the employee of the Opposite Party alongwith photographs. On that time, the said employee of the Opposite Party told to complainants that demat accounts will be opened within 24 hours. So as per the assurance of the Opposite Party’s employee, the complainants presumed that it will be opened. When the complainants enquired about the demat account from the Opposite Party, they came to know that demat account in the name of the complainant has not been opened. The complainant is very busy doctor, he had no spare time to visit the Opposite Party time to time to enquire about the opening of demat account. On 20.07.2022, complainants again visited the Opposite Party and made request to open the demat accounts, but inspite of this, the Opposite Party did not open the demat account of the complainant. The complainants also send a request letter to Nodal Officer, HDFC Bank and a legal notice was also served upon the Opposite Party, but all in vain. Hence this complaint. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs:-

a)       Opposite Parties may be directed to open the demat account.

b)      To pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation on account of mental tension and harassment caused by the complainant.

c)       To pay Rs.22,000/- as cost of complaint.

d)      And any other relief which this Commission may deem fit and proper be granted to the complainant in the interest of justice and equity.

2.       Opposite Party appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the complaint under reply is liable to be dismissed qua the Opposite Party as the same is an abuse of the process of law; the present complaint is baseless, frivolous and has been formulated on wrong and misleading facts and is devoid of any merits. The present complaint under reply is liable to be dismissed qua the Opposite Party as the complainant has utterly failed to prove any fault on the part of the Opposite Party. There is no documentary evidence which points out any fault on the part of the Opposite Party. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party. The demat account of the complainant as prayed in the present complaint has already been opened on 06.08.2022 before filing the present complaint. The fact of opening of demat account has already been communicated to the complainant through emails. The relief claimed in the present complaint has already been fulfilled before filing the present complaint. The present complaint under reply is liable to be dismissed qua Opposite Party with cost. The complaint is liable to be dismissed qua the Opposite Party as the complainant has not come before this Commission with clean hands and has concealed the vital and material facts from this Commission. The complainant has presented an incorrect and wrong version of the facts before this Commission, thereby attempted to misguide and mislead this Commission. On merits, all other allegations made in the complaint are denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint is made.

3.       In order to prove their case, complainants tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant no.1 Ex.C1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C19.

4.       To rebut the evidence of the complainant, Opposite Party tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh.Sumit Gautam, Branch Manager, HDFC Bank Ltd. Ex.OP1 alongwith copy of account opening status Ex.OP2

5.       We have heard the counsel for the complainant and gone through the documents placed on record.

7.       Ld. counsel for the complainant contended that complainants have joint account in Opposite Party’s bank. Further contended that complainants requested the Opposite Party’s bank to open joint demat account in their names and provided all the required documents to open the demat account. Further contended that complainants have few shares of HDFC Bank and they requested the Opposite Party to convert it into demat account, then the complainants came to know that Opposite Party did not open their demat account. Thereafter, on 20.07.2022 complainants again visited to Opposite Party and made a request to open demat account. Complainants also served a request letter and also served a legal notice upon the Opposite Party, but all in vain. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the Opposite Party contended that the demat account of the complainants as prayed has already been open on 06.08.2022.

8.       We have perused the rival contentions of ld. counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. In the whole complaint, there is no mentioning that firstly on which date the complainants approached the Opposite Party for opening of demat account. In the whole complaint and documents placed on record it is mentioned the complainants again approached the Opposite Party on 20.07.2022 and the complaint is silent about the first visit of the complainants to Opposite Party’s bank. In this way, the averment of the complainant cannot believe to be true that they ever visited the Opposite Party’s bank before 20.07.2022 for opening of demat account. On the other hand, the defence of the Opposite Party is that they have already opened the demat account of the complainants on 06.08.2022 and to prove this fact Opposite Party has placed on record document Ex.OP2 and from the perusal of same, it is clearly evident that joint demat account of complainants has already been opened on 06.08.2022 and to strengthen his version, the Opposite Party has also tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh.Sumit Gautam, Branch Manager, HDFC Bank Limited Ex.OP1. In this way, the complainant failed in proving the prima-facie case in his favour.

9.       In view of the above discussion, the complaint of the complainant is hereby dismissed. However, keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to record room after compliance.

Announced on Open Commission