Orissa

Cuttak

CC/124/2014

Tanushree Das - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

A K Samal

31 Oct 2019

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,CUTTACK.

                                                                C.C No.124/2014

            Mrs. Tanushree Das,

C/o: Dr. J.N.Das,At:Samanta Sahi,

P.O:Buxibazar,(Near Women ‘s Clinic),

Cuttack-753001.                                                                                …Complainant.

 

                                Vrs.

       

1.        The Manager,

HDFC Bank Card Division,

Ceebros Building,No.110,

Nelson Manic Kam Road,

Aminiji Karai,Chenai-600029.

 

2.        Officer Debt Management,

HDFC Bank Card Division,

Ceebros Building, No.110,

Nelson Manic Kam Road,

Aminiji Karai,Chennai-600029.

 

3.           Branch Manager,

H.D.F.C.Bank,

Bajrakabati Road Branch,

At/PO:Bajrakabati,Dist:Cuttack.                                              … Opp. Parties.

               

Present:               Sri Dhruba Charan Barik,LL.B. President.

Smt. Sarmistha Nath, Member (W).

 

Date of filing:     05.09.2014

Date of Order:   31.10.2019

 

For the complainant:          Mr. A.K.Samal,Adv. & Associates.

For Opp.Parties 1 & 2:        Mr. D.P.Tripathy,Adv. & Associates.

 

Sri Dhruba Charan Barik,President.

                Having attributed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice to the O.Ps, the complainant has filed this case against them seeking appropriate relief in terms of her prayer in the consumer complaint.

1. Facts of this case briefly stated are that the complainant has a Savings Bank Account bearing No.2361000035971 of H.D.F.C Bank at Bajrakabati Road,Cuttack.  She was also having a credit card bearing No.4050282002337074 issued against her by the O.P No.1.  It is also stated that the O.Ps besides having banking business are also carrying out the business of insurance.  Some officers of the O.Ps bank who are dealing with insurance matters at Kolkata Branch office once made discussion with the complainant over phone for issuance of insurance policy in her favour but the complainant was reluctant to take such policy.  She has also not given any written consent to those officers for taking any such insurance policy in her name.  It was surprising to note that one day the complainant got credit card statement for the month of March,2011 and found that an amount of Rs.976.23p has been deducted from her account towards payment of insurance premium.  That amount was deducted from her account on 26.3.2011 by auto payment system by the O.Ps.  It is categorically stated that none of the O.Ps has ever obtained any consent from the complainant for such deduction from her account towards payment of insurance premium.  All that was done, was done in connivance with the officers of insurance company at Kolkata without the knowledge and consent of the complainant.  The complainant immediately lodged a complaint online against the O.Ps on 29.3.2011 and subsequently another complaint was also lodged online against them on 15.6.2011.  Thereafter at the request of the O.Ps, the complainant on 16.6.2011 gave a written complaint to them but no action was taken on it.  Subsequently another written complaint was also made on 1.12.2011.  Annexure-1 is the photo copy of the written complaint lodged on 16.6.2011.

The dispute continued despite repeated requests made by the complainant to settle the same but of no avail.The complainant then was compelled to make deposit of the outstanding dues in the bank on 25.11.2011 and this fact was intimated to O.Ps 1 & 2 on 1.12.2011 with a request to settle the dispute but nothing was settled till date.Annexure-2 is the copy of the letter dt.1.12.11 filed in this case.On 1.12.2011 the complainant got a letter from the O.Ps wherein it was stated that the O.Ps were taking steps to transfer an amount of Rs.7202.18p from her Savings Account against credit card overdue.The complainant was shocked and then contacted O.Ps 1 & 2 over phone and could know that the above amount was outstanding because of non-payment of Rs.976.23p together with the interest accrued thereon since November,2001.It is important to leave a mention here that the said amount was transferred from the S.B Account of the complainant on 16.11.2012.Immediately on 27.11.12 the complainant lodged a complaint with O.P No.1 which was received by him at Nayapalli Branch,Bhubaneswar but without any response.Thereafter on 26.12.2012 she filed a complaint on E.Mail I.D of Credit Card Division of the Bank and after repeated correspondences on E.Mail, the O.Ps 1 & 2 finally agreed to have committed the mistake and then refunded the deducted amount of Rs.7,202/- to the complainant on 27.2.2013.Copy of the complaint sent on E.Mail has been filed and marked as Annexure-3.It has caused serious mental agony and harassment to her because of the dilatory tactics of the O.Ps.Lastly she sent a legal notice to O.Ps 1 & 2 on 30.3.13 making special claim of Rs.5,00,000/- against them but it did not receive due consideration by the O.Ps.Having no other alternative, the complainant was compelled to file the present case against them.Photo copy of the letter dt.1.11.12 has been filed and marked as Annexure-4 & photo copy of the legal notice dt.30.3.13 has been marked as Annexure-5.The complainant has also filed true copy of the account statement and credit card statement which have been marked as Annexure-6 & 7 respectively.Annexure-8 is the true copy of the letter dt.1.11.13 issued by the O.Ps.

Accordingly it is prayed that the O.Ps may be directed to pay Rs.9,000/- towards the amount withdrawn on 27.3.11 together with 18% compound interest, Rs.10,000/- towards amount withdrawn from her S.B.Account on 16.11.12 together with 18% compound interest, Rs.3,00,000/- for having caused mental agony and harassment to her, Rs.1,00,000/- for loss of time and unnecessary expenses as well as loss of faith on bank and Rs.15,000/- towards cost of litigation.Altogether it comes to Rs.4,34,000/-.

2. The O.Ps have contested the case by filing their joint written version.  The power of attorney holder of O.P.1 being authorized has been filed together with the written version on behalf of O.P.No. 1 & two other O.Ps.

At the outset it was stated that the case was not maintainable both in fact and law and the complainant is not a consumer under the C.P.Act.It is stated that the O.Ps are not carrying out any insurance business.The insurance company as stated in this case is a separate legal entity and has nothing to do with the banking operation run by the O.Ps.

It is categorically admitted that the complainant availed the health policy from H.D.F.C Ergo Insurance and she had given her consent to avail such insurance and also to deduct the premium of insurance from her account.Similar consent according to the O.Ps was also obtained for auto debit from her account.It is also admitted that the premium amount already deducted has already been refunded to the account of the complainant together with the interest accrued thereon on the basis of the complaint made by her.It is also revealed that the dispute between the parties has already been resolved long back and now the complainant has filed the present case to put the O.P into harassment without any just cause.As such it is prayed that the present complaint does not merit consideration and the same may be dismissed.

3. We have heard the learned counsels from both the sides, gone through their pleadings and the annexures filed with the case. 
4. The bone contention between the parties was whether deduction of Rs.976.23p from the S.B. Account of the complainant by auto payment system made by the O.Ps towards payment of premium in the month of March,2011 valid, legal and with the knowledge/consent of the complainant.  It is categorically stated by the O.Ps in their written version as well as argued by the learned counsel for the O.Ps that the complainant had given her consent to such deductions made periodically by the O.Ps towards payment of premium for insurance and as such the above deduction was made from her account by auto payment system but there was no document filed by the O.Ps to substantiate their claim.  Rather the contention of the written version made by the O.Ps revealed that there were contradictory facts that found mention in the version.  In para-6 of the averment it has been clearly stated that the O.Ps are carrying out their banking business exclusively and they have no connection with any insurance business run by the insurance company which is admittedly not a party in this case.  According to them the insurance company is completely a separate legal entity and has nothing to do with the banking business run by the O.Ps.  In this back drop it is highly astonishing that on what basis the O.Ps could know that the complainant had given her consent to avail the health insurance policy from the H.D.F.C Ergo insurance.  In view of the contradictory statements made by the O.Ps in their written version as well as in absence of any documentary proof made by the O.Ps, it cannot be held that there was no material to hold that the complainant had given her consent to obtain such health insurance policy.  Added to it, it does not stand to reason as to why the deducted premium together with the interest accrued thereon amounting to Rs.7,202/- was refunded to the account of the complainant especially when the complainant was said to have  given her consent to such insurance policy.

In view of the above it is held that the version made by the O.Ps is not acceptable and that there was deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.The learned counsel for the O.Ps has further argued that the alleged insurance company has not arrayed as a party in this case and it is bad in law.The learned counsel for the complainant has fairly submitted that there was no specific relief claimed against the insurance company and as such there is no need to add the said insurance company as a party to this case.The O.P was also silent all along and nothing was done by them in this regard.The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant has force in it.

From the aforesaid discussions, it is held that the complainant has proved that there was deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps and hence ordered;

ORDER

The case be and the same is allowed on contest against the O.Ps.In the facts and circumstances of the case, the O.Ps are directed to pay total compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant and Rs.5000/- towards cost of litigation in the interest of justice.This order shall take effect within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

    Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by the Hon’ble President in the Open Court on this the 31^st day of October,2019  under the seal and signature of this Forum.

                                                                                                                                                  

    (   Sri D.C.Barik )

                                                                                                                       President.

                                                             

                                                                                                            (Smt. Sarmistha Nath)

                           Member(W)