Complaint presented on  :29.10.2015

                                                                    Date of disposal            :17.05.2022

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (NORTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 600 003.

                   PRESENT : THIRU. G. VINOBHA, M.A., B.L.,                         :PRESIDENT

                                         TMT. KAVITHA KANNAN, M.E.,                         : MEMBER-I

                                         THIRU.V.RAMAMURTHY,B.A.,B.L.,PGDLA.,   :MEMBER-II

C.C. No.165/2015

DATED THIS TUESDAY THE 17^th   DAY OF MAY 2022

Mr.D.Chenthilkumar,

S/o.Durairaj,

No.G1602, concorde Manhattan,

Electronic city phase ,

Bangalore-560 100.

                                                                                                           .. Complainant.                                                                          ..Vs..

1.The Manager,

HDFC Bank Ltd.,

Prince Kushal Towers,

First floor, A Wing, 96,

Anna salai, Chennai-600 002.

2. The Manager,

HDFC Bank Ltd,

No.31/32, Balfour Road,

Kilpauk, Chennai-600 010.

                                                                       ..  Opposite parties.

Counsel for the complainant                      : M/s. E. Muralidharan,

Counsel for   opposite parties                   : M/s.Pass Associates.

ORDER

THIRU. G. VINOBHA, M.A., B.L., PRESIDENT

          This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 prays to direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- for the mental harassment and torture caused by the opposite parties towards compensation for sufferings of mental agony caused to the complainant by the deficiency of service committed by the opposite party with 12% interest per annum from the date of complaint, to direct the opposite party to release the blocking of FD Account number-50300075215170 and to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- towards litigation expenses.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The complainant submitted that he has FD Account Number-50300075215170 in first opposite party bank namely HDFC bank. The complainant submitted that he has FD Account Number-50300075215170 for Rupees Forty Lakhs was blocked by the second opposite party branch.  The second opposite party have no authority to block complainant account without the order of the Hon’ble court or through proceedings of any of the authority.  The complainant submitted that he had given complaint through Email on 05.02.2015 and the second opposite party replied stating that Ms.Vasanthi gave a written complaint to the second opposite party on 12.01.2015 and based on the same the second opposite party had blocked FD account Number-50300075215170 for Rupees Forty Lakhs.  The complainant further submitted that there is no banking rules which states that on the complaint of any person an account can be arbitrarily blocked by the bank. The money is the share derived from the disposing of ancestral property.  The complainant further submitted that it is pertinent to stated that there is neither police complaint nor suit filed by the above said Ms.Vasanthi.

The opposite party bank has no authority to act as investigation agency or courts to do an act based on any person complaint without seeking any explanations from the customers. The complainant submitted that opposite party staffs did not give any proper reply in respect of blocking of the above account.  The Complainant submitted that he had sent legal notice dated:06.07.2015 to the opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-(Rupees Five Lakhs only) jointly or severally for mental  harassment and torture caused to the complainant and to release the blocking of FD Account number-50300075215170 immediately receiving the said notice.  The complainant submitted that the opposite party bank had deducted TDS(Tax Deductable at source) in respect of the above said FD account Number-50300075215170 for the period of the Financial Quarter ended March and June 2015 even though the interest was not paid to the complainant by the opposite party bank which is illegal. Hence this complaint.

2.WRITTEN VERSION OF OPPOSITE PARTIES  IN BRIEF:

          The opposite parties submits that the complaint is bad for non-jonder of necessary and proper party i.e. Smt. K. Vasanthi who is a joint account holder with the complainant and there is a dispute between them over the entitlement of the sums and hence, in the absence of any suitable relief of declaration the present complaint is not maintainable. The opposite parties stated that the complainant is an existing customer of HDFC Bank, T.Nagar Branch, Chennai, having permanent customer identification number.  While so, one Smt.K.Vasanthi along with the complainant i.e. Mr.D.Chenthil kumar approached the opposite parties Electronic City Phase 1 Branch at Bangalore for opening a joint savings Bank account in their names. Accordingly a savings Bank account, bearing No.50100053847194 was opened where in the said Smt.K.Vasanthi is the primary holder of the Account wherein she was also assigned with the customer identification No.56455226. On, 07.01.2015 the said Vasanthi had visited the 2^nd opposite party with a request to close the Fixed Deposits held at Electronic City Phase 1 Branch and credit the value into her aforesaid savings bank joint account No.50100053847194.  Based on such request, the 2^nd opposite party had closed the existing fixed deposits approximately totalling to Rs.81,40,000/- and the same was credited into her savings bank joint account bearing no.50100053847194 on the same day.  Immediately thereafter, the said vasanthi had transferred the said amount to her individual SB account bearing No.50100081399734, maintained at Kilpauk Branch, chennai, i.e. 2^nd opposite party. On 08.01.2015, the said Smt.K.Vasanthi had visited the branch along with the said Mr.Mohan and enquired about the amounts held in her individual saving bank account alleging that the complainant had unauthorisedly transferred the sums from her account using the net banking ID.  Upon which 2^nd opposite party had verified the transaction in the individual saving bank account of the said vasanthi bearing No.50100081399734, HDFC Bank, Kilpauk Branch, i.e. 2^nd opposite party and it was found that a sum of Rs.80,00,000/- was transacted and transferred through net banking to the joint saving bank account bearing no.50100053847194, HDFC bank, Electronic City Branch on 07.01.2015.  Out of which, on the very same day itself, a sum of Rs.40,00,000/- was transferred through net banking from the joint saving bank account-50100053847194 to the individual account of the complainant maintained with HDFC bank, T.Nagar branch and the balance a sum of Rs.40,00,000/-  was transferred through net banking to the individual saving bank account no.50100081399734 of the said K.Vasanthi maintained with HDFC Bank, Kilpauk Branch, Chennai. On 06.07.2015, the complainant has caused to issue the notice to the 2^nd opposite party with ulterior motive.  A suitable reply dated 08.09.2018 for the same has been issued by the 2^nd opposite party to the complainant. The opposite parties stated that the complainant and the said K.Vasanthi are closely related and there appears to be family dispute among them in which both are unnecessarily dragging the opposite parties into their personal dispute. The opposite parties also understood from the representation of the said K.Vasanthi that she had lodged a complaint with Cyber Crime Cell,  Certral Crime Branch, Team-12, chennai, regarding the fraudulent transfer of sums from her account and the same is under investigation.  Based on the communication dated 10.03.2015 of CCB, Chennai, the 2^nd opposite party had also furnished certain details and documents as sought for.  The opposite parties stated that in view of the dispute among the said K.Vasanthi and the complainant and contemplation of legal action  the 2^nd opposite party was constrained to withhold the payment of sum in the fixed deposit with the bonafide and legal intention to protect the interest of the parties concerned.  Hence, there is absolutely no deficiency in the service on the part of the opposite parties as alleged by the complainant. As regards para 11, deduction of TDS is a statutory requirement and the same is in accordance with law.  The said Smt.K.Vasanthi is the necessary and proper party to these proceedings.  Any decision, in the absence of said K.Vasanthi, may lead to conflict of decision and multiplicity of proceedings.  Further, in the absence of any relief for declaration regarding entitlements the present complaint is not maintainable.

3. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party as alleged in the complaint?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs claimed in the complaint. If, so to what extent?

4. Point No.1:-

The Complainant has FD A/c.No. 50300075215170 in the 1^st opposite party bank and further according to the complainant who was having Rs.4,00,000/- in that account which was blocked by the 2^nd opposite party without any information to the complainant which is against banking rule.  For which he has given the complaint to the 2^nd opposite party on 05.02.2015 for which a reply was received stating based on a written complaint given by one Vasanthi on 12.01.2015.  But, the 2^nd opposite party blocked in the FD A/c.NO. 50300075215170 and there was no proper explanation by the opposite parties for blocking the account and therefore the complainant has prayed  to release the blocking of FD account and also claimed compensation for mental agony suffered by the complainant. 

          5. Complainant had filed proof affidavit and  Ex.A1 to A5 were marked on the complainant side.  The Opposite party filed proof affidavit and  Ex.B1 to B9 were marked on the opposite party side.

          6. On the otherhand it was contention by the opposite parties that the complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary party namely Smt.K.Vasanthi who is a joint account holder with the complainant and there is a dispute between her and complainant over the amount and hence contended that without the relief for declaration the present complaint is not maintainable.  It is found from the Ex.A1 the complainant has sent Email on 05.02.2015 stating that the FD A/c.No. 50300075215170 was blocked illegally for which a reply was sent under Ex.A2 by the 2^nd opposite party stating that one Vasanthi was having Joint Savings Account Bearing No.50100053847194 with the complainant under either or survivor mandate with electronic city phase I branch  Bangalore and she had given complaint to the 2^nd opposite party on 12.01.2015 stating that the complainant had transferred Rs.80,00,000/- from her individual saving bank account to the joint savings bank account in Bangalore branch with the A/c.No. 50100053847194 and subsequently the complainant transferred Rs.40,00,000/- to his individual account No.02061050020936 with T.Nagar branch, Chennai and another Rs.40,00,000/- to  Vasanthi’s  savings bank account with Kilpauk branch, Chennai using Vasanthi’s net banking Login ID and Password and it was done without her knowledge and therefore on receipt of said complaint.  The 2^nd  opposite party blocked the FD A/c for Rs.40,00,000/- and further requested the complainant to give the details of ownership of the above said amount.  In Ex.A3 is legal notice issued by the complainant to the bank it is alleged that the amount was derived from the disposing the complainants ancestral property.  But the complainant has not filed any document to prove the such contention.  The complainant failed to prove regarding the ownership to the above said amount of Rs.40,00,000/-.  It is found from the Ex.B1 that without the knowledge of the said Vasanthi the complainant had transferred fund to the tune of Rs.40,00,000/- to his individual account by using her Net Banking Longin ID and Password.  It is found from the Ex.B2 and B3 that the complainant and one Vasanthi were related to each other and they were having joint account in the Electronic City Phase I branch Bangalore and later on by closing the said account, the said Vasanthi  has opened a new account with 2^nd opposite party bank and from which account the complainant herein had transferred to his individual account a sum of Rs.40,00,000/- without her knowledge and it is further found that there is family dispute between the complainant and said Vasanthi and it is further found that the said Vasanthi has given a complaint with the Cyber Crime against the complainant regarding the fund transfer and investigation is also pending and therefore in order to protect the interest of the customer and their money pending of the investigation the 2^nd opposite party has rightly blocked the account and the amount therein as mentioned in the complaint and prima facie. it is found that such blocking  of FD account was done by the bank based on the complaint given by the said Vasanthi who was initially having joint account with the complainant herein with a common net banking Login ID and  password and due to the family dispute between them. It is found from the Ex.B9 that the central crime branch inspector on 10.03.2015 has sent a letter to the 2^nd opposite party stating that one Vasanthi has given a complaint regarding fraudulant transfer of Rs.40,00,000/- from her account through online on 07.01.2015. Therefore it is clear that police investigation is pending with regard to transfer of Rs.40,00,000/- from Vasanthi Account to the complainant account on 07.01.2015. The fact of joint holder of account and relationship between the complainant and Vasanthi was suppressed by the complainant in the complaint. Under such circumstances the person who has approached this commission seeking a remedy has to come with clean hands without Suppression of any material fact. But here the complainant has  approached this commission by suppressing the family dispute between the complainant and Vasanthi and filed this complaint with ulterior motive. Further the complainant failed to prove and file the necessary documents regarding the disposal of his ancestral property to prove the ownership of the fund to the tune of Rs.40,00,000 in his account. Though it is alleged in the complaint that interest was not paid to the complaint by the opposite party bank regarding the TDS deducted the same was done by the opposite parties in accordance with law. Therefore the complainant filed  without joining the said Vasanthi as a party to the proceedings is not legally valid. Further though it is alleged in para 8 of the complaint that there is no police complaint filed by Vasanthi. Ex B9 disprove such contention. Therefore there is no deficiency in service by the opposite parties in blocking the FD A/c.No. 50300075215170 and further there is no proof for the alleged mental agony and 

harassment caused to the complainant by the action of the opposite parties. Point no.1 is answered accordingly. 

7.. Point No.2.

            Based on findings given to the Point.No.1 since there is no deficiency in service on the part of Opposite party, the complainant is not entitled for a direction to release the blocking of  FD A/c.No. 50300075215170 and compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for mental agony as claimed in the complaint.  Point no.2 answered accordingly.

          In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No costs.     

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-Typist taken down, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 17^th day of May 2022

MEMBER I                       MEMBER II                         PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE  OPPOSITE PARTY:

MEMBER – I                       MEMBER – II                         PRESIDENT