JUDGEMENT

Mr. Purna Chandra Mishra, President.

              Complainant Susil Kumar Arora, Proprietor of M/s Prakash and Company has filed this case u/s 35 of the CP Act-2019 alleging deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties for deducting a sum of Rs. 38,350/- from his current account and sum of Rs. 2500/- from his account on different dates without his knowledge and consent and praying therein for direction to the Opposite Parties to refund a sum of Rs. 40,850/- deducted on 03.10.2017 and pay compensation of Rs. 25,000/- for mental agony and physical harassment for two years and a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards cost of litigation and a sum of Rs. 10, 000/- towards Advocate’s fee.

1.               Brief fact leading to the case is that the complainant is a businessman carrying on his business under the name and style M/s. Prakash and Company in Khariar Road. He is having a current account in HDFC Bank, Khariar bearing Account No. 50200012705689. When the complainant went to the Bank, on 16.10.217, it came to his knowledge that an amount of Rs. 38350/- and 2500/- has been deducted from his account towards process fee and legal advice fee respectively. He was surprised to know about the deduction as it has been done without his knowledge and consent. Even though the complainant had requested the Opposite Parties to restore his balance, they did not listen to the grievance of the complainant. So, he filed this case before this Commission for the refund of his deducted amount as discussed above.
2.               After receipt of notice, the Opposite Parties appeared through their Advocates and filed their written statements. In their written statements, the OPs admitted that the complainant is having the account in their Bank. He approached the Bank for credit facility amounting to Rs. 65 Lakh and on the basis of his request, the bank agreed to extend the credit facility subject to fulfillment of terms and condition. The complainant made the application in the prescribed form and also executed the loan agreement along with declaration-cum-undertaking for use of credit facility for the business purpose, debit authority letter to debit processing fees and other charges, insurance undertaking-cum-debit authorization, list of properties to be mortgaged and the demand promissory note for credit facility of Rs. 65 Lakhs. The complainant also presented the profile of their firm, monthly statement along with list of properties to be mortgaged. The OP Bank processed the application and as per the debit authorization signed by the complainant, the bank has deducted the proceeding fee from the current account of the complainant. So, the deduction of the fee and other charges from the account of the complainant is not illegal. The complainant executed the documents except property documents free from encumbrance for the purpose of creating security and remained silent for a long time. He did not deposit the title deeds as agreed for. Therefore, the loan facility could not be availed by him and by suppressing the material facts; he has approached this Commission for which they prayed for dismissal of the case.
3.               It is seen from the documents filed by the Opposite Parties that on 27.09.2017, the complainant has issued one debit authority letter to the Manager, HDFC Bank Ltd. At Panchagachia, PO-Baraipali, Sambalpur, Odisha-768006to debit the processing fees and other charges from his Account No. 50200012705689. So, it is clear that the debit authority Letter dt. 27.09.2017 was given to HDFC Bank Ltd, Sambalpur and not to OP No. 2. The OP No. 2 has not whispered a single word as to how the debit authority given to another branch has been used by him. It appears that the OP No. 2 has collected this document from the other Branch to use it as a shield to escape from the clutches of law. The OP No. 2 has not stated a single word as to how this document came to his custody and how he is competent to use this mandate for his use. So, it is very much clear from the documents filed by the OP No.2 that at no point of time, the complainant has given any authority to Branch Manager, HDFC Bank, Khariar Road Branch to deduct any money from his account by way of  auto-debit to deduct process fee and other charges from his account. In the absence of any connecting link between the loan application of the complainant to the OP No. 2 and HDFC Bank, Sambalpur, the claim of OP No. 2 in this regard is not sustainable in the eyes of law and hence rejected.
4.               The bank has deducted the amount without the express instruction of the complainant from his account which amounts to unfair trade practice and non-restoration of the debited amount to his account after repeated compliance amounts to deficiency in service and the complainant was made to run for a period of two years to get his money and thereby the bank has caused sufficient harassment and tension to the complainant.

5.               As a case of deficiency in service coupled with unfair trade practice and harassment is made out against the Opposite Parties, they are liable to compensate the complainant for loss and harassment sustained by him and hence the order.

O R D E R

                    The complaint petition is allowed on contest against the Opposite Parties. The OP No. 2 is directed to restore a sum of Rs. 38350/- (Rupees Thirty Eight Thousand Three Hundred and Fifty) only and Rs. 2500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred only) deducted on 03.10.2017 to the account of the complainant with interest as applicable to the current account and to pay a sum of Rs. 20, 000/- as compensation for deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and harassment caused to the complainant. The Opposite Parties are further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards cost of litigation. The order is to be complied within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of order failing which the entire amount shall carry interest @ 12% from the date of order till it is paid to the complainant.