Surjit Kaur w/o Harjinder Singh s/o Shiv Dev Singh r/o V.Sahlon, Tehsil and Distt. Nawanshahr. ….Complainant.

Versus

HDFC Bank Nawanshahr through its Branch Manager. ….Respondents



Surjeet Kaur (hereinafter called as complainant), has filed this complaint against HDFC Bank, Nawanshahr through its Branch Manager (hereinafter called as OP) for issuance of a direction to the Op to encash the FDR bearing No. 112103000038270 dated 08/08/2008 and pay interest on the maturity value of the FDR to the tune of Rs.20,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.

2. The brief admitted facts of this complaint are that the complainant is the holder of FDR referring above which was to mature on 08/08/2008, issued by Centurion Bank of Punjab which now stands merged with the OP bank. It is claimed that another FDR had been purchased by the complainant in the sum of Rs.53,000/- from the Centurion Bank of Punjab which was to mature in the month of January or February 2009. The said FDR was got encashed by the complainant prematurely on 16/07/2008.


The complainant being not in possession of the said FDR, is unable to give specific details of the same. It is added that on maturity of FDR bearing No. 112103000038270, the complainant had approached the Op bank for its encashment but the Bank staff kept on dithering over the matter. Later on the staff of the Op bank put up an excuse that this FDR had been encashed on 16/07/2008. Efforts on the part of the complainant to convince the staff of the Op bank that this FDR was never encashed did not bear any fruit. The Op bank is thus stated to be deficient in service towards the complainant, in addition to causing mental as well as physical harassment to her. Hence this complaint.

3. In the written version filed by the Ops, it was not disputed that the complainant and her husband the joint FDR from the Centurion Bank of Punjab for Rs.53,704/- dated 07/08/2008 which carried the maturity value of Rs.59,151/- and the maturity date was 08/08/2008. It is contended that the original FDR carries the title as “Fixed Deposit” and its advice carries the title of “Confirmation of Fixed Deposit”. The FDR which is in possession of the complainant was stated to be confirmation receipt only. It was contended that the FDR bearing No. 112103000038270 was got encashed by the complainant on 16/07/2008 and the amount was credited to there saving account.


The original FDR handed over to the bank for encashment was alleged to have been misplaced at the Branch during the binding/handling of the vouchers. It was specifically denied that any other FDR of the complainant exist in the Bank record as claimed by the complainant. Even the complainant was stated to have failed to provide any other FDR or its confirmation of the fixed deposit. On the insistence of the complainant, the OP bank claimed to have searched the bank record no after FDR was found to exist. It was denied that the Op bank was deficient in service towards the complainant. A prayer for dismissal of the complaint was accordingly made.

4. Both the parties have placed on record their respective evidence in the shape of affidavits and other documents.

5. We have considered the written as well as oral submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and carefully scrutinized the evidence on record.

6. No doubt the complainant has alleged that she possessed an other FDR which was to mature in the month of January or February 2009, in addition to the FDR No. referred above, yet from the allegations in the complaint itself it is clear that the complainant was not aware of its number of date of its issuance, as well as date of maturity. In such circumstances, it will be unjust to draw an inference that any such FDR was ever obtained by the complainant or her husband from Centurion Bank of Punjab or it was presented to the Op bank for its encashment, prematurely. The complainant could have produced here saving bank account statement from where the amount must have been withdrawn by her for the purchase of any FDR dated 17/08/2007 but she did not prefer to do so.


On the contrary the Op have categorically stated that the FDR for 07/08/2007 for Rs.53,704/- bearing no. 11210300038270 which was to mature on 08/08/2007 with maturity value of Rs.59,151/- had been duly encashed by the complainant on 16/07/2008 and the maturity value of Rs.59,151/- duly credited to her saving account copy of which is Ex.R-3. Ex R-2 is account statement of the complainant from 01/07/2008 to 17/07/2009. Perusal of Ex. CW1/B lends credence to the contention of the Op as it is infect is a confirmation of fixed deposit and not the original FDR which was submitted to the bank but later on misplaced by the bank during binding/handling of the vouchers.


Mere possession of original deposit confirmation receipt by the complainant can not lead to the conclusion that this FDR was not encashed or the complainant had any after FDR which was prematurely encashed on 16/07/2008. It is also pertinent to mention that FDR dated 07/08/2007 confirmation of deposit receipt of which is in possession of the complainant was also to mature on 08/08/2008 where in it was encashed prematurely on 16/07/2007. No motive can be attributed to the Op bank for denying the benefits of any other FDR, if at all the complainant had actually obtained the same from Centurion Bank of Punjab.

7. In the light of the aforesaid facts, we are constrained to hold that no deficiency in service on the part of the Op bank towards the complainant is established. The complaint is therefore dismissed.

Harpreet Singh son of Sh. Jagjit Singh, resident of No.14697, Street No.3, Kalsi Nagar, Dholewal, Ludhiana.

(Complainant)

Vs.



1. H.D.F. C Bank, Kalsi Nagar, Ludhiana through its M.D/Chairman.



2. The Branch Manager, H.D.F.C. Bank, Kalsi Nagar, Ludhiana.

(Opposite parties)









O R D E R


1. Complainant under Prime Minister Rojgar Yogna Scheme, after fulfilling all the formalities and completion of documentation of small scale industries, approached the OP-Bank for loan. They sought project report before approval of the loan. Spent Rs. 3000/- to obtain project report from the Chartered Accountant and submitted the same to the bank, who issued sanctioned letter dated 20.3.2008 subject to sanctioning of P.M.R.Y. loan cases for the year 2007-08. Thereafter, repeatedly requested OP-Bank to relase the loan amount, but they evaded on one pretext or the other. By not releasing the loan after sanctioning, is claimed amount to deficiency in service on their part. Resultantly, also served legal notice dated 9.8.08 but without any effect. Hence, this complaint for direction to the opposite party to disburse loan of Rs.2,00,000/- and to pay him Rs. 85,000/- compensation for mental pain and agony along with Rs.15,000/- litigation costs.

2. Opposite parties no.1 & 2 in joint reply claimed that allegations of the complainant are baseless, frivolous and there is no deficiency in service on their part. However, they conceded that complainant applied for loan of Rs.2,00,000/-under Prime Minister Rojgar Yogna Scheme. But denied that he had fulfilled all the formalities or they demanded project report from him. Request of the complainant for loan was declined for non completion of formalities and project report submitted by the complainant was of trading of steel and aluminum scrap which is an industrial activity. Further claimed that sanction and disbursement of the loan is their discretion and they can refuse to disburse the loan without assigning any reason.

3. In order to prove their respective versions, parties led their evidence by way of affidavits and documents.

4. We have heard the arguments addressed by ld. counsel for the parties, gone through file, scanned the documents and other material on record.

5. It is admitted that the complainant under Prime Minister Rojgar Yogna Scheme applied for loan of Rs.2,00,000/- from the Op-Bank. Bank, consequently issued sanctioned order (Ex. CW3) in favour of the complainant, sanctioning loan of Rs.2,00,000/- in his favour subject to completion of bank formalities. Directed G.M. Industrial Centre, Ludhiana to impart necessary training to the complainant, so that loan amount be disbursed. After issuance of the letter Ex.CW3 by the opposite party, complainant underwent industrial training qua which obtained certificate Ex.CW2 from the General manager, Industries General, Ludhiana

6. It is apparent that while sanctioning the loan, pre condition made by the opposite party was to obtain necessary training before enabling the bank to release and disburse sanctioned loan in his favour. This condition was complied by the complainant, when obtained certificate Ex.CW2 after undergoing training programme during the months of March- April,2008 from the Institute for Auto Parts Technology, Ludhiana. Earlier the complainant had complied with requirements of the opposite submitting project repot to them and complainant claimed that had spent Rs.3000/- for obtaining such report. The opposite party in reply has stated that project report submitted by the complainant was of trading of steel and aluminum scrap which was industrial project. It means project report as asked by the opposite party from the complainant, was made available to them.

7. When after meeting requirements of the opposite party sanctioned loan was not disbursed, complainant filed application Ex. CW4 and CW5 to the Hon’ble Prime Minister of India, New Delhi and thereafter issued legal notice Ex.CW1, posted through postal receipt Ex.CW6 to the opposite party but till filing of the complaint loan so sanctioned was never released in his favour.

8. No doubt, it may be discretion of the OP-Bank to release or not release the loan unless and until all their requirements are complied by the loanee. In the instant case, whatever were conditions for sanctioning of the loan, stood fulfilled by the complainant. What other formalities he failed to complete, opposite party has not been able to specify the same. Only for the sake of objections, they have taken such plea without any substance. It appears that officials of the opposite party by their acts and deeds not only frustrated aims, goals and designs of the complainant but also of the Govt. of India to help the Youth of the nation to get self employment by starting work at small scale with the help of bank loans.

9. Hence, we are of the view that opposite party-Bank certainly in this respect would be guilty of not rendering proper services to its own consumer. As they after applying for loan by the complainant, made him to shift his stand by undergoing training and procure project report by spending Rs.3000/- thereon. Consequently, the loan should have been disbursed, but not done so and this act on the part of opposite party-Bank certainly would be deficiency in service. Such deficiency has gone against intention of the Central Govt. to help unemployed Youth of the Nation.

M. Iyappan,

S/O. A.Mariappan,

No.640, Grakalakshmi Apartment,

B-11, Tondiarpet,

Chennai – 600 081. : Complainant



Vs.



1. Balaji Automative,

No.570, T.H.Road,

Old Washermenpet,

(Opp.Vigai Mahal)

Chennai – 600 021.



2. The Manager,

HDFC Bank Ltd,

Two Wheeler Loan Department,

Retial Asset Division 3rd Floor,

No.56, G.N.Chetty Road,

T.Nagar,

Chennai – 600 017 : Opposite Parties





O R D E R



1. The case of the complainant is briefly as follows:

The complainant booked Honda Activa two wheeler vehicle with the Ist opposite party and paid Rs.1,000/- as advance on 2.8.2008. The Ist opposite party had also agreed to arrange the vehicle loan to the 2nd opposite party for Rs. 34,300/- repayable in 24 instalments at Rs. 1,756/- per month. The complainant had also given 5 blank undated cheques to the Ist opposite party drawn on Syndicate Bank, Tondiarpet Branch, Chennai. The vehicle was not delivered by the Ist opposite party as promised on 6.8.2008. On 27.8.2008 the complainant contacted the Ist opposite party and requested to deliver the vehicle.


He was informed that an extra amount of Rs.1,000/- has to be paid since the vehicle rate has been increased. Having agreed to deliver the vehicle for Rs.44,465/- on 2.8.2008 by receiving a token advance of Rs.1,000/- he cannot increase the price of the vehicles. The 2nd opposite party has sanctioned a loan of Rs.34,300/- and the complainant was informed that the loan amount was paid to the Ist opposite party by the 2nd opposite party directly. Even though the vehicle was not delivered the complainant was asked by the 2nd opposite party to pay the instalment amount. Even after receipt of the money the 2nd opposite party did not deliver the vehicle.


This act of the Ist opposite party amounts to deficiency in service, The 2nd opposite party even without verifying whether the vehicle was delivered or not paid the loan amount to the Ist opposite party and therefore he had also committed deficiency in service. Hence the complainant has filed this complaint for direction to the opposite party to deliver the vehicle for the price which was originally agreed to Rs.44,465/- after deducting the initial amount of Rs.1,000/-, Pay Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony, Rs.1,000/- as loss and Rs.25,000/- towards litigation expenses,

2. The opposite parties even after receipt of notice, did not appear before this Forum. Hence the opposite parties were set ex-parte.

3. 3.Proof Affidavit was filed by the complainant Exs.A1 to Exs.A6 were marked on the side of the complainant.

4. The points that arise for considerations are:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

2. To what relief the complainant is entitled to?

5. Point No:1:

The grievance of the complainant is that he booked a Honda Activa two wheeler vehicle with the Ist opposite party for Rs.44,655/- and also arranged loan from the 2nd opposite party. When he demanded delivery of the vehicle, the Ist opposite party insisted the payment of extra amount, even after receipt of the loan amount from the 2nd opposite party. He issued a legal notice Ex.A5 demanding delivery of the vehicle and compensation. It was received by both the parties but no reply,

The opposite parties neither appeared nor filed version before this Forum and in the absence of any contra evidence on the side of the opposite parties, the case of the complainant is to be accepted. On perusal of the documents, we are of the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

Mrs. Ashima Arora, through authroised Ms.Aruna Arora, R/o House No.121, Sector 15-A, Chandigarh.

….…Complainant

V E R S U S



[1] HDFC Standard Life through its Head Operations Registered Office Ramon House, HT Parekh Marg, 169, Backbay, Reclamation, Mumbai – 400020, India.



[2] Mr. Vijay Kumar Sharma, Official, office at HDFC Standard Life, Sector 43, Chandigarh.



[3] HDFC Standard Life, through its Branch Head, Sector 43, Chandigarh.



…..Opposite Parties







By this common order, we are disposing of two connected complaint cases i.e. the instant one and another bearing Complaint Case No.716 of 2009 titled as “Ashima Arora Vs. HDFC Standard Life & Ors.” as both are having same controversy as well as similar question of facts and law.

2] The facts are being taken from the present Complaint Case No.715 of 2009 – Ashima Arora Vs. HDFC Standard Life & Others.

3] According to the Complainant, Opposite Party No. 2 approached her for some investment. She requested to invest her money in mutual fund, but he instead of investing money in mutual fund, had got issued a Policy bearing No.12089908 in August 2008 by paying annual premium of Rs.20,000/- for a term of 15 years (Annexure C-2), which fact she came to know only on receipt of the Policy and booklet. Even the OP No. 2 had himself filled the Proposal Form and signed the same. She tried to contact the OP No. 2, but he refused to entertain her.


She then approached the Insurance Ombudsman vide complaint Annexure C-4, who vide order dated 19.2.2009 cancelled the policy and ordered refund of the premium made in full. He was, however, silent about the compensation. Alleging that the aforesaid order of the Insurance Ombudsman has not been complied with by the OP, this Consumer complaint has been instituted before this Forum.

4] Notice of the complaint was sent to OPs seeking their version of the case.

5] OP No 1 & 3 filed reply, interalia, pleading that the OP Insurance Co. called upon the Complainant to surrender the policy of insurance and to complete the necessary formalities, so that the premium amount could be refunded. However, she failed to provide the OP with the surrendered policy and hence, the amount could not be refunded to her. The delay in refund of amount was attributable to the failure of the Complainant to complete the formality as were required for the purpose of surrender of the policy and hence, the OP was not liable for the delay.


It was further pleaded that in case the Complainant had any grievance that the order of the Ombudsman has not been complied with, then the present complaint before this Forum was not the appropriate legal remedy. It was submitted that OP does not engage in or provide any scheme/plan for investment in mutual fund. Further, the Complainant had put her signatures in acceptance of the policy terms and conditions and if she was not satisfied with the said policy, she could within 15 days of the receipt of the same opt for the cancellation of the said policy during the free look in period wherein the full amount would have been refunded to her.


The Policy was received by her in August, 2008 whereas for the first time the dispute was raised in December 2008. The same was duly replied vide letter dated 24.12.2008. It was also pleaded that non-payment of compensation or interest by the Insurance Ombudsman can not be the basis for filing the complaint under the Consumer Protection Act. All other material contentions of the complaint were controverted. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint.

6] OP No.2 did not turn up despite due service of notice, therefore, they were proceeded against exparte.

7] Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

8] We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

9] The contention of the Complainant that she wanted to invest her money in mutual fund, but instead of investing the money in mutual fund, two policies were issued by the OPs in her favour in August, 2008, regarding which she made a complaint to the OPs to cancel the same, as she never wanted the insurance policies. Ultimately, the matter went to the Insurance Ombudsman, who also found that her signatures had been forged on the proposal forms for issuance of the policies and directed the OPs to cancel the same and pay back the amount. The OPs, however, did not pay the amount, nor the Ombudsman allowed her interest on the amount deposited with the OPs, due to which she had to approach this Forum.

10] The Complainant was given two policies, the annual premium of which is Rs.20,000/- and Rs.12,000/- annually. In this manner, the total amount of premium to be paid by her is Rs.32,000/-. It is contended that the signatures of the Complainant have been forged on the proposal forms by the OP No.2, with a view to issue the policies in question and to achieve their target. This contention holds water, as the Ombudsman in his order returned a categoric finding to the aforesaid effect that the signatures of the Complainant on the complaint letter are different than the signatures on the proposal forms.


We are, therefore, of the opinion that the Complainant never intended to purchase the policies, as is alleged by the OPs, but her intention was only to invest in the mutual funds. The OPs, therefore, misguided her, did not give her complete information to the effect that they were selling an insurance policy and not that her amount was being invested in mutual funds. This is an unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.

11] The matter has been agitated before the Ombudsman by both the parties where also the contention of the Complainant was accepted and the OPs were directed to refund the amount, but they have not done it so far, on the pretext that the Complainant did not surrender the Policy. A perusal of the order dated 19.2.2009 of the Ombudsman shows that no such direction was ever given to the Complainant to surrender the policies. Otherwise also, the amount could not be retained by the OPs on any such frivolous ground, because the Policy could have been cancelled and the question of surrender did not arise.


Even the Ombudsman asked the OPs to cancel the Policy, which was not done by the OPs, nor the amount was refunded. Otherwise also, the OPs never asked the Complainant to surrender the Policy. The learned counsel for the OPs could not produce any such letter issued by the OPs addressed to the Complainant requiring her to surrender the Policies. This excuse has, therefore, been coined by the OPs to defend their malafide action in not refunding the amount.

12] In view of above discussion, we are of the opinion that the present complaints must succeed. The same are accordingly, allowed. The OPs are directed to refund the amount of Rs.32,000/- with interest @8% per annum since the date of deposit till the payment is actually made to the Complainant, along with Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation in each case. If the amount is not paid within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, the OPs would be liable to pay interest @12% per annum from the date of deposit till the amount is paid to the Complainant.

Ms. Kusum, R/o H.No. 121, Sector 15-A, Chandigarh.



….…Complainant

V/s



[1] HDFC Standard Life through its Head Operations Registered Office Ramon House, HT Parekh Marg, 169, Backbay, Reclamation, Mumbai – 400020, India.



[2] Mr. Vijay Kumar Sharma, Official, office at HDFC Standard Life, Sector 43, Chandigarh.



[3] HDFC Standard Life, through its Branch Head, Sector 43, Chandigarh.



…..Opposite Parties





2] The facts are being taken from the Complaint Case No.712 of 2009 – Kusum Vs. HDFC Standard Life & Others.

3] According to the Complainant, Opposite Party No. 2 approached her for some investment. She requested to invest her money in mutual fund, but he instead of investing money in mutual fund, got issued a Policy bearing No. 12105616 in August 2008 by paying annual premium of Rs.99,996/- for a term of 10 years (Annexure C-1), which fact she came to know only on receipt of the Policy and booklet.


Even the OP No. 2 had himself filled the Proposal Form and signed the same. She tried to contact the OP No. 2, but he refused to entertain her. She then approached the Insurance Ombudsman vide complaint Annexure C-4, cancelled the policy and ordered refund of the premium made in full. He was, however, silent about the compensation. Alleging that the aforesaid order of the Insurance Ombudsman has not been complied with by the OP, this Consumer complaint has been instituted before this Forum.

4] Notice of the complaint was sent to OPs seeking their version of the case.

5] OP No 1 & 3 filed reply, interalia, pleading that the OP Insurance Co. called upon the Complainant to surrender the policy of insurance and to complete the necessary formalities, so that the premium amount could be refunded. However, she failed to surrender the policy and hence, the amount could not be refunded to her. The delay in refund of amount was attributable to the failure of the Complainant to complete the formality as were required for the purpose of surrender of the policy and hence, the OP was not liable for the delay. It was further pleaded that in case the Complainant had any grievance that the order of the Ombudsman has not been complied with, then the present complaint before this Forum was not the appropriate legal remedy.


It was submitted that OP does not engage in or provide any scheme/plan for investment in mutual fund. Further, the Complainant had put her signatures in acceptance of the policy terms and conditions and if she was not satisfied with the said policy, she could within 15 days of the receipt of the same opt for the cancellation of the said policy during the free look in period wherein the full amount would have been refunded to her. The Policy was received by her in August, 2008 whereas for the first time the dispute was raised in December 2008.


The same was duly replied vide letter dated 23.12.2008. It was also pleaded that non-payment of compensation or interest by the Insurance Ombudsman can not be the basis for filing the complaint under the Consumer Protection Act. All other material contentions of the complaint were controverted. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint.

6] OP No.2 did not turn up despite due service of notice, therefore, they were proceeded against exparte.

7] Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

8] We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

9] The contention of the Complainant is that she wanted to invest her money in mutual fund, but instead of investing the money in mutual fund, three policies were issued by the OPs in her favour in August, 2008, regarding which she made a complaint to the OPs to cancel the same, as she never wanted the insurance policies. Ultimately, the matter went to the Insurance Ombudsman, who also found irregularities in the issuance of the policies and directed the OPs to cancel the same and pay back the amount. The OPs, however, have not paid back the amount so far, nor the Ombudsman had allowed her interest on the amount deposited with the OPs, due to which she had to approach this Forum.

10] A perusal of the Proposal Form [Annexure A-1] shows that the total income of the Complainant from all sources was Rs.2.50 lacs per annum. She was given three policies, the annual premium of one is Rs.99,996/- and the other is Rs.1,02,000/- and the third is Rs.50,000/- annually. In this manner, the total amount of premium to be paid by her is Rs.2,51,996/-, which is even more than her total income per annum.


It is not understood, as to where from she was expected to pay the premium and how she would be able to maintain herself and her family if the entire income was paid by her every year. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the Complainant never intended to purchase the policies, as is alleged by the OPs, but her intention was only to invest in the mutual funds. The OPs, therefore, misguided her, did not give her complete information to the effect that they were selling an insurance policy and not that her amount was being invested in mutual funds. This is an unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.

11] The matter has been agitated before the Ombudsman by both the parties where also the contention of the Complainant was accepted and the OPs were directed to refund the amount, but they have not done it so far, on the pretext that the Complainant did not surrender the Policy. A perusal of the order dated 19.2.2009 of the Ombudsman shows that no such direction was ever given to the Complainant to surrender the policies. Otherwise also, the amount could not be retained by the OPs on any such frivolous ground, because the Policy should have been cancelled and the question of surrender did not arise.


Even the Ombudsman asked the OPs to cancel the Policy, which was not done by the OPs, nor the amount was refunded. Otherwise also, the OPs never asked the Complainant to surrender the Policy. The learned counsel for the OPs could not produce any such letter issued by the OPs addressed to the Complainant requiring her to surrender the Policies. This excuse has, therefore, been coined by the OPs to defend their malafide action in not refunding the amount.

12] In view of above discussion, we are of the opinion that the present complaints must succeed. The same are accordingly, allowed. The OPs are directed to refund the amount of Rs.2,51,996/- with interest @8% per annum since the date of deposit till the payment is actually made to the Complainant, along with Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation in each case. If the amount is not paid within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, the OPs would be liable to pay penal interest @12% per annum from the date of deposit till the amount is paid to the Complainant.

M. Iyappan,

S/O. A.Mariappan,

No.640, Grakalakshmi Apartment,

B-11, Tondiarpet,

Chennai – 600 081. : Complainant



Vs.



1. Balaji Automative,

No.570, T.H.Road,

Old Washermenpet,

(Opp.Vigai Mahal)

Chennai – 600 021.



2. The Manager,

HDFC Bank Ltd,

Two Wheeler Loan Department,

Retial Asset Division 3rd Floor,

No.56, G.N.Chetty Road,

T.Nagar,

Chennai – 600 017 : Opposite Parties






O R D E R





1. The case of the complainant is briefly as follows:

The complainant booked Honda Activa two wheeler vehicle with the Ist opposite party and paid Rs.1,000/- as advance on 2.8.2008. The Ist opposite party had also agreed to arrange the vehicle loan to the 2nd opposite party for Rs. 34,300/- repayable in 24 instalments at Rs. 1,756/- per month. The complainant had also given 5 blank undated cheques to the Ist opposite party drawn on Syndicate Bank, Tondiarpet Branch, Chennai. The vehicle was not delivered by the Ist opposite party as promised on 6.8.2008. On 27.8.2008 the complainant contacted the Ist opposite party and requested to deliver the vehicle.


He was informed that an extra amount of Rs.1,000/- has to be paid since the vehicle rate has been increased. Having agreed to deliver the vehicle for Rs.44,465/- on 2.8.2008 by receiving a token advance of Rs.1,000/- he cannot increase the price of the vehicles. The 2nd opposite party has sanctioned a loan of Rs.34,300/- and the complainant was informed that the loan amount was paid to the Ist opposite party by the 2nd opposite party directly. Even though the vehicle was not delivered the complainant was asked by the 2nd opposite party to pay the instalment amount. Even after receipt of the money the 2nd opposite party did not deliver the vehicle.


This act of the Ist opposite party amounts to deficiency in service, The 2nd opposite party even without verifying whether the vehicle was delivered or not paid the loan amount to the Ist opposite party and therefore he had also committed deficiency in service. Hence the complainant has filed this complaint for direction to the opposite party to deliver the vehicle for the price which was originally agreed to Rs.44,465/- after deducting the initial amount of Rs.1,000/-, Pay Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony, Rs.1,000/- as loss and Rs.25,000/- towards litigation expenses,

2. The opposite parties even after receipt of notice, did not appear before this Forum. Hence the opposite parties were set ex-parte.

3. 3.Proof Affidavit was filed by the complainant Exs.A1 to Exs.A6 were marked on the side of the complainant.

4. The points that arise for considerations are:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

2. To what relief the complainant is entitled to?

5. Point No:1:

The grievance of the complainant is that he booked a Honda Activa two wheeler vehicle with the Ist opposite party for Rs.44,655/- and also arranged loan from the 2nd opposite party. When he demanded delivery of the vehicle, the Ist opposite party insisted the payment of extra amount, even after receipt of the loan amount from the 2nd opposite party. He issued a legal notice Ex.A5 demanding delivery of the vehicle and compensation. It was received by both the parties but no reply,

The opposite parties neither appeared nor filed version before this Forum and in the absence of any contra evidence on the side of the opposite parties, the case of the complainant is to be accepted. On perusal of the documents, we are of the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

Mrs. Ashima Arora, through authroised Ms.Aruna Arora, R/o House No.121, Sector 15-A, Chandigarh.

….…Complainant

V E R S U S



[1] HDFC Standard Life through its Head Operations Registered Office Ramon House, HT Parekh Marg, 169, Backbay, Reclamation, Mumbai – 400020, India.



[2] Mr. Vijay Kumar Sharma, Official, office at HDFC Standard Life, Sector 43, Chandigarh.



[3] HDFC Standard Life, through its Branch Head, Sector 43, Chandigarh.



…..Opposite Parties










By this common order, we are disposing of two connected complaint cases i.e. the instant one and another bearing Complaint Case No.716 of 2009 titled as “Ashima Arora Vs. HDFC Standard Life & Ors.” as both are having same controversy as well as similar question of facts and law.

2] The facts are being taken from the present Complaint Case No.715 of 2009 – Ashima Arora Vs. HDFC Standard Life & Others.

3] According to the Complainant, Opposite Party No. 2 approached her for some investment. She requested to invest her money in mutual fund, but he instead of investing money in mutual fund, had got issued a Policy bearing No.12089908 in August 2008 by paying annual premium of Rs.20,000/- for a term of 15 years (Annexure C-2), which fact she came to know only on receipt of the Policy and booklet.


Even the OP No. 2 had himself filled the Proposal Form and signed the same. She tried to contact the OP No. 2, but he refused to entertain her. She then approached the Insurance Ombudsman vide complaint Annexure C-4, who vide order dated 19.2.2009 cancelled the policy and ordered refund of the premium made in full. He was, however, silent about the compensation. Alleging that the aforesaid order of the Insurance Ombudsman has not been complied with by the OP, this Consumer complaint has been instituted before this Forum.

4] Notice of the complaint was sent to OPs seeking their version of the case.

5] OP No 1 & 3 filed reply, interalia, pleading that the OP Insurance Co. called upon the Complainant to surrender the policy of insurance and to complete the necessary formalities, so that the premium amount could be refunded. However, she failed to provide the OP with the surrendered policy and hence, the amount could not be refunded to her. The delay in refund of amount was attributable to the failure of the Complainant to complete the formality as were required for the purpose of surrender of the policy and hence, the OP was not liable for the delay.


It was further pleaded that in case the Complainant had any grievance that the order of the Ombudsman has not been complied with, then the present complaint before this Forum was not the appropriate legal remedy. It was submitted that OP does not engage in or provide any scheme/plan for investment in mutual fund. Further, the Complainant had put her signatures in acceptance of the policy terms and conditions and if she was not satisfied with the said policy, she could within 15 days of the receipt of the same opt for the cancellation of the said policy during the free look in period wherein the full amount would have been refunded to her.


The Policy was received by her in August, 2008 whereas for the first time the dispute was raised in December 2008. The same was duly replied vide letter dated 24.12.2008. It was also pleaded that non-payment of compensation or interest by the Insurance Ombudsman can not be the basis for filing the complaint under the Consumer Protection Act. All other material contentions of the complaint were controverted. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint.

6] OP No.2 did not turn up despite due service of notice, therefore, they were proceeded against exparte.

7] Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

8] We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

9] The contention of the Complainant that she wanted to invest her money in mutual fund, but instead of investing the money in mutual fund, two policies were issued by the OPs in her favour in August, 2008, regarding which she made a complaint to the OPs to cancel the same, as she never wanted the insurance policies. Ultimately, the matter went to the Insurance Ombudsman, who also found that her signatures had been forged on the proposal forms for issuance of the policies and directed the OPs to cancel the same and pay back the amount. The OPs, however, did not pay the amount, nor the Ombudsman allowed her interest on the amount deposited with the OPs, due to which she had to approach this Forum.

10] The Complainant was given two policies, the annual premium of which is Rs.20,000/- and Rs.12,000/- annually. In this manner, the total amount of premium to be paid by her is Rs.32,000/-. It is contended that the signatures of the Complainant have been forged on the proposal forms by the OP No.2, with a view to issue the policies in question and to achieve their target. This contention holds water, as the Ombudsman in his order returned a categoric finding to the aforesaid effect that the signatures of the Complainant on the complaint letter are different than the signatures on the proposal forms.


We are, therefore, of the opinion that the Complainant never intended to purchase the policies, as is alleged by the OPs, but her intention was only to invest in the mutual funds. The OPs, therefore, misguided her, did not give her complete information to the effect that they were selling an insurance policy and not that her amount was being invested in mutual funds. This is an unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.

11] The matter has been agitated before the Ombudsman by both the parties where also the contention of the Complainant was accepted and the OPs were directed to refund the amount, but they have not done it so far, on the pretext that the Complainant did not surrender the Policy. A perusal of the order dated 19.2.2009 of the Ombudsman shows that no such direction was ever given to the Complainant to surrender the policies.


Otherwise also, the amount could not be retained by the OPs on any such frivolous ground, because the Policy could have been cancelled and the question of surrender did not arise. Even the Ombudsman asked the OPs to cancel the Policy, which was not done by the OPs, nor the amount was refunded. Otherwise also, the OPs never asked the Complainant to surrender the Policy. The learned counsel for the OPs could not produce any such letter issued by the OPs addressed to the Complainant requiring her to surrender the Policies. This excuse has, therefore, been coined by the OPs to defend their malafide action in not refunding the amount.

12] In view of above discussion, we are of the opinion that the present complaints must succeed. The same are accordingly, allowed. The OPs are directed to refund the amount of Rs.32,000/- with interest @8% per annum since the date of deposit till the payment is actually made to the Complainant, along with Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation in each case. If the amount is not paid within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, the OPs would be liable to pay interest @12% per annum from the date of deposit till the amount is paid to the Complainant.

Ms. Sunita Rana W/o Sh. Y.P. Rana,

R/o Rana Cottage Jakhu Shimla.



… Complainant.

Versus





1. The Branch Manager, HDFC Bank Ltd. Jankidass Building, The Mall Shimla.



2. The Chairman cum Managing Director, HDFC Bank, Sanapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel ( West) Mumbai-400013.

…Opposite Parties











O R D E R:







This complaint has been filed by the complainant, by invoking the provisions of Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant avers that she is having saving bank account bearing No.1591000023733 with the OP No.2. She avers that on, 20.08.2005, she sent Rs.15,000/- along with deposits slips duly signed by her, to the OP No.1, with her husband, but the OP No.1 refused to accept the said amount and insisted that complainant herself should come to the bank to deposit the money in her account. The complainant further proceeded to aver that again on, 21.03.2006, she sent Rs.11,000/- to the OP No.1 for depositing the same in her account, but this time the official of the OP No.1 who was sitting on the seat, accepted the pay in slip and money, but suddenly one Shri Aaman Deep arrived there and directed the said official to return the money and slips to the husband of the complainant.


She further avers that the action of the OP No.1, in not accepting the amount, hence, not depositing the same in her account, not only amounts to deficiency in service, but is also a deficiency in service, which action of the OP No.1, in not accepting the amount, entitles her to claim compensation from the OPs-Bank, for unnecessary harassment. Hence, it is averred that there is apparent deficiency in service on the part of the OP and accordingly relief to the extent as detailed in the relief clause be awarded in his favour.

2. The OPs-Bank, in its written version, to the complaint, raised preliminary objection vis-à-vis maintainability of the complaint, and status of the complainant as a consumer. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant was having saving bank account with the OPs, but it is denied that she was at any point of time assured by them, that she can operate her account from any where in the country. They further contend that in fact the complainant was not having any account with the OP No.1, but she wanted to transfer the amount in cash, which was not permissible under the bank rules and guidelines.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also thoroughly scanned the entire record of the case.

5. The parties do not wrangle the fact that the complainant had opened a saving bank account, with the OP No.2 at Mumbai. It is also not in dispute that the complainant on 20.08.2005 and 21.03.2006, sent the amount to the OP No.1, for depositing the same in her account, which the OP No.1 refused to accept on the ground that there is no provision for transferring the amount from one branch to another branch especially, when she is not an account holder in the bank. In support of this contention, the OPs-Bank has placed reliance on Annexure R-1, which is the copy of the instructions/guidelines in relation to the funds transfer. A perusal of the aforesaid document makes it abundantly clear that as a general rule, all third party cash deposits and withdrawals at non-home branch is disallowed.

6. The complainant has not been able to repulse the said document by adduction of cogent and convincing evidence, hence, it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that the action of the officials of the OP No.1-Bank in not accepting the amount, can be construed, to be a deficiency in service, rather, it, was acting within the instructions or guidelines framed by the OPs-Bank. As such, in our considered view it cannot be held that the OPs-Bank has committed deficiency in service or that they have indulged in an unfair trade practice, hence, the complaint being without any merits is liable to be dismissed.

7. Resultantly, the complaint being without merit deserves dismissal and we order accordingly. No order as to the costs. The learned counsel for the parties undertook to collect the certified copy of this order from the office, free of cost, as per rules. The file after due completion, be consigned to record room.

1. S. Thangavel Gounder
2. K. Subramaniya Gounder
3. T. Sivakumar,Dhali Village,Udumalept Tk, --- Complainant

Vs.

1. M/s. HDFC Bank Limited,rep.by Credit Manager,

1/180-2 Mettupalayam Road,

Thudiyalur, Coimbatore – 641 030.

2. M/s. HDFC Bank Limited,rep.by B.M.,

No. 1, Venkatraman Road,

Mahalingapuram, Pollachi,Coimbatore. --- Opposite Parties



Counsel for the petitioner : Mr. M.N. Ramalingam, Mr. T. Ganeshan & Others

The case of the complainant

1. This is the complaint filed by the complainant praying this forum to pass on order against the 1st and 2nd opposite parties

a. directing the opposite parties to disburse and pay the complainant the agreed agriculture loan of Rs.5,00,000/- towards cash credit limit for mulberry crop production and term loan of Rs.90,000 for silkworm rearing shed, in total Rs.5,90,000 within a date to be stipulated by this Forum

b. directing the opposite parties to pay a sum Rs.60,000/- with interest at the rate of 15% p.a from the date of sanctioning of the loan to the complainants towards initial expenses incurred by them towards plough, planting of saplings, labour etc.

c. To pay a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation for deficiency of service and

d. to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards cost of the proceedings.



2. Complaint, documents perused. Complainant's counsel argument heard.

This complaint is not maintainable for the following reasons.

1. As per D.No.15 namely letter dated 29.10.08 the Bank has instructed

the complainant to submit No Due Certificate from State Bank of India,

Jallipatti where the complainant owes a huge debit. But the complainant

failed to submit No Due Certificate till 2.8.2008.

2. The non sanctioning of loan by a bank cannot be questioned

by this Forum.

3. The relief enumerated u/s 14 of the C P act alone can be granted by this

Forum.

4. The authority I 2009 CPJ 91 NC is not applicable the case on hand because in that case the Bank has already sanctioned the loan but in the present case terms and conditions are not complied with by the complainant.

Hence this complaint is not maintainable before this Forum.

FIRST APPEAL NO. 1059 OF 2007

IN COMPLAINT CASE NO. 85 OF 2007

DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM: PARBHANI.

HDFC Bank Ltd,

Through its Power of Attorney Holder,

Mr. Suhas s/o. Vioshnu Tope,

R/o. C/o. HDFC Bank Ltd.,

Shivani Chambers, Manjit Nagar,

Near Akashwani, Jalna Road,

Aurangabad. … Appellant

VERSUS

Gautam Gangadhar Mundhe

R/o. Sujata Colony,

Old Pedgaon Road, Parbhani. … Respondent



Coram : Shri.S.G.Deshmukh, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial Member.

Mrs. Uma S.Bora, Hon`ble Member.


Present: Adv. Shri. U.N. Shete for the appellant.

Adv. Shri. D.R. Markad, for respondent.

:: ORAL ORDER ::
Per Shri S.G.Deshmukh, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial Member



1. The present appeal is filed by the HDFC Bank against the judgment and order dated 05.09.2007 passed by District Consumer Forum, Parbhani.



2. Complainant’s case before the Forum is that, he had decided to purchase Hero Honda splendor and decided to take assistance from respondent. It is contended that, the price of motor cycle was Rs.40,750/-. He deposited Rs.7,222/- towards down payment and raised

the loan of Rs. 33,528/-. The loan was to be repaid in 36 equal monthly installments of Rs. 1,648/- The complainant had given post dated cheque of Parbhani District Central Co-operative Bank. It is contended that complainant had paid first installment by cheuqe on 16.11.2006. It is contended that due to financial crisis the installment of month Dec.2006 & January-2007 could not be paid. Complainant paid the said amount on 01.03.2007 & 17.03.2007. It is contended that there is nothing due against the complainant. The respondent repossessed the vehicle by force on 13.03.2007 when the complainant was going to attend his duty. It is contended that respondent had issued the telegram on 23.03.2007 demanding the Rs.44,003/- as full and final payment. Thus, he approached the Forum for restoring the possession and for directing the respondent not to charge seizure charges and for the compensation.



3. Notices were sent to the respondents. Respondents had appeared before the Forum. Respondent had sought time to file written statement on 07.07.2007, 11,07.2007, 23.07.2007 & 01.08.2007. Even then the respondent did not file the written statement. The complaint was proceeded exparte.



4. The Forum below after going through the papers and hearing the complainant directed the appellant to pay the amount received by them towards the installments with the interest @ 9% p.a. from 04.04.2007. Forum also directed the appellant to pay Rs.500/- towards the mental agony and Rs.500/- towards the cost.



5. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order respondent came in appeal.



6. Notice was issued to the respondent. Learned counsel Shri. D.R. Markad appeared for respondent. We heard learned counsel Shri. U.N. Shete for the appellant and Shri. Markad for respondent. Learned counsel Shri. Shete submitted that, the price of the vehicle is not considered while allowing the complaint by the Forum.



7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent fully supported the judgment and order passed by the Forum. There is no dispute that, the vehicle in question was purchased by the respondent for Rs.40,750/- on hire purchase agreement. The loan to the tune of Rs. 33,528/- was raised by the respondent from the present appellant. It is also apparent that, the notice sent by Forum was served on present appellant. Though appellant had appeared before the Forum they had not filed the written statement. Thus, entire pleadings of the complainant had gone unchallenged. The appellant mentioned that, he had paid the installments, which were due for the month of December, 2006 and January, 2007. It is also apparent that, the vehicle was repossessed on 13.03.2007. The vehicle was repossessed without giving notice to the complainant. Thus, it is apparent that no opportunity was given to the complainant to make the payment of due installments. It is also apparent from the judgment of Forum that the vehicle was auctioned by the present appellant. Simply telegram appears to have been sent by the appellant to make the payment of Rs. 44,003/-. Telegram does not mention the auction date. Neither mentions it details about so called arrears of Rs.44,003/-. The Forum has rightly considered that, no notice of repossession as well as the details of auction had been given to the complainant by the appellant. We are not inclined to interfere the order in the circumstances.

O R D E R

1. Appeal is dismissed.

2. No order as to cost.

3. Copy of order be furnished to the parties.

Present: Sri Manoranjan Hazra,President.

Sri Lingaraj Khadanga,Member.

C.C.No.82/2009

Proprietor, Sri Kamal Santuka,

M/s. SEASONS,
At:Choudhury Bazar,Cuttack. … Complainant.
Vrs.

Branch Manager,

HDFC Bank Ltd.,At:Bajrakabati Road,

Cuttack. … Opposite Party.

JUDGMENT DT.26.11.09

Sri Manoranjan Hazra,President

Alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Party, the present complaint is filed.

1. The brief facts of the case of the complainant are that he is running a partnership business in readymade garments in the name and style of M/s. Seasons. He opened one current account bearing No.2362290000053 in the year 2004 and another account bearing No.2362020000361 in 2006 with the Opposite Party. In order to run the business smoothly, by filing application under Annex-1 installed one Electronic Data Capture (EDC) machine in his business premises on 23.1.2004 through Opposite Party. For the said EDC machine the Opposite Party started claiming Rs.575/- per month from November,2003. As against such demand complainant requested Opposite Party vide letter under Annex-2 to refund the rent for the months of November,December,2002 and January,2003 as other banks do not claim such rent against such machine, but to no effect. Again vide letter dt.10.3.05 the complainant again requested Opposite Party not to deduct such rent from his account and Opposite Party stopped such deduction till August,08. But again from September,08, the Opposite Party started deducting such rent from his current account. Though complainant wrote under Annexs-4,5,6,7 & 8 to stop such collection, Opposite Party did not pay any heed. At the same time the said machine went out of order since 23.12.2008.

2. Complainant issued one cheque bearing No.301383 dt.9.2.06 for Rs.29,000/- to M/s. Any Time of Mumbai, who presented the said cheque at Samanta Sahakari Bank Ltd. at Mumbai and the said bank on 17.2.06 sent the said cheque to Opposite Party for clearance and for remitting back the amount by draft. Though one month elapsed Opposite Party did not comply, on the other hand at the instance of Opposite Party, complainant obtained one demand draft of Rs.29,000/- by presenting cheque No.301398 dt.28.3.06 and only thereafter Opposite Party on 30.6.2006 cleared the cheque No.301383 dt.9.2.06. For such act of Opposite Party the complainant had to spend Rs.29,000/- for two times.

3. Complainant issued cheque No.360661 dt.24.5.07 for Rs.50,000/- in favour of M/s. Vikash Synthetics and cheque No.360667 dt.18.6.07 for Rs.28,925/- in favour of M/s. Kalaniketan of Jaipur, but Opposite Party returned back both the cheques on 25.5.07 and 25.6.07 respectively and debited Rs.300/- and Rs.350/- from the current account of the complainant towards cheque return charges, though there was sufficient amount in the other account. During the year 2007-08 the Opposite Party has deducted Rs.1011.24p in total towards cheque return charges thereby causing loss to his business.

4. The Opposite Party debited a sum of Rs.550/- from Account No.2362290000053 as against “Samay Debit Card” though the same was not activated by the complainant. Similarly though the said Debit Card was issued against Account No.2362290000053, Rs.1124.41p has been debited from Account No.2362020000361 during the year 2006-07 and 2007-08 respectively.

Besides the above, the complainant found that the Opposite Party on different dates collected various charges from him under the heading AFM,AWF,NWF,Cash Deposit and MPR ADV Plan charges. Inspite of verbal approaches made by the complainant as well as representations under Annexs-15& 16 the Opposite Party have not refunded those charges.

5. On 28.1.09 the complainant had a balance of Rs.20,289.32p in Account No.2362020000361 and as the complainant was expecting clearance of a cheque issued to him for Rs.20,416/-, he deposited a further sum of Rs.14,100/- on 19.1.09 with Opposite Party at 10 A.M. but the Opposite Party returned back the said cheque unpaid on the same day due to delayed entry in the computer regarding such deposit and at the same time debited a sum of Rs.300/- towards cheque return charges. According to the complainant the aforesaid acts of Opposite Party amounts to deficiency in service for which he filed this complaint claiming a total sum of Rs.5,68,046/- on different heads.

6. The Opposite Party enter its appearance and filed its version alleging interalia that the present complaint is not maintainable as the complainant is not a consumer in respect of EDC machine which he obtained from the Opposite Party for the purpose of commercial use and as per the contract, the complainant was to pay a sum of Rs.575/- towards monthly charges besides 2.5% per transaction. The monthly rentals were deducted from the account of the complainant as because the complainant failed to comply with clause-2 of the agreement wherein it was to provide the details of the ownership of the premises wherein the complainant carries on business, when the complainant submitted its merchant application for installation of EDC machine. It is admitted by the Opposite Party that as per the contract, the complainant was to pay Rs.575/- towards monthly rental charges for the EDC machine but on the request of the complainant the Opposite Party had relinquished its demand but the said charges was again collected from the complainant from September,08 as per the agreement. As regards presentation of cheques by M/s. Any Time of Mumbai for its clearance, it is stated that the said cheque was duly honoured by the Opposite Party on its proper presentation through proper channel and no delay was caused in honouring the cheque. Opposite Party never advised the complainant to make payment to Ms. Any Time through a demand draft. With regard to the cheque of Rs.50,000/- issued in favour of M/s.Vikash Syntehtics, the said cheque was not issued as against the account which had sufficient funds on the other hand the reason best known to the complainant as to why the said cheque was issued as against the account where there was no sufficient fund. As regards the charges realized by the Opposite Party as against Samaya Devit Card, it does not amount to illegal realization. That being so the Opposite Party has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

7. From the pleadings of the parties, the points for consideration are

(a) Whether the complainant is a consumer in respect of Electronics Data Capture(EDC) machine.

(b) Whether the Opposite Party honored the cheque issued in favour of M/s. Any Time and after lapse of long time amounting to Deficiency in service?

(c) Whether the Opposite Party committed deficiency in service by returning back the cheques in favour of M/s. Vikash Synthetics and M/s. Kalaniketan?

(d) Whether the Opposite Party collected charges as against Samay Debit Card illegally amounting to deficiency in service?

(e) Whether the Opposite Party has illegally deducted charges on various occasions from the complainant against the heading AFM, AWF, NWF, Cash Deposit and MPR ADV Plan charges etc thereby committed deficiency in service?

(f) Whether the Opposite Party illegally returned back the cheque of Rs.20,416/- on 29.1.09 inspite of having sufficient funds in Account No.2362020000361 and illegally debited Rs.300/- towards cheque return charges?

(g) Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for?

8. As regards the first point for consideration, we hold that the complainant is not a consumer in respect of the EDC machine because in order to run his readymade garments business smoothly he obtained the EDC machine from the Opposite Party i.e. it was solely for the purpose of his business.

9. As regards the second point for consideration, according to the complainant he had issued one cheque bearing No.301383 dt.9.2.06 for Rs.29,000/- in favour of one M/s. Any Time of Mumbai. The banker of M/s. Any Time i.e. Samanta Sahakari of Mumbai sent the said cheque to the Opposite Party for its clearance, but the Opposite Party did not clear the same and caused delay for which the complainant had to make payment to M/s. Any Time through a demand draft of Rs.29,000/- as against cheque no.301398 dt.28.3.06 and after such demand draft, the first cheque was cleared by the Opposite Party. So according to the complainant due to latches of the Opposite Party he had to make payment twice to M/s. Any Time. Therefore he has prayed for payment of Rs.29,000/- along with interest of Rs.9906.08 but according to us no relief can be granted to the complainant in respect of such claim because the same is barred by limitation.

10. As regards the third question for consideration, it is the case of the complainant that he had issued one cheque bearing no.360661 dt.24.5.07 for Rs.50,000/- in favour of M/s Vikash Synthetics and another cheque bearing No.36067 dt.18.6.07 for Rs.28,925/- in favour of M/s Kalaniketan of Jaipur but the Opposite Party returned back those cheque on 25.5.07 and on 25.6.07 respectively and debited Rs.300/- and Rs.350/- from the account of the complainant towards cheque return charges, though there was sufficient funds in the account of the complainant. In support of such allegations, not a single scrap of paper have been produced by the complainant to show that those two cheque were returned back on 25.5.07 and 25.6.07 on the other hand the statement of accounts at page-90 & 91 does not reveal that a sum of Rs.300/- & 350/- have been debited from the account of the complainant on 25.5.07 & 25.6.07 respectively. Therefore such allegation of the complainant is not acceptable as such it can be said that the Opposite Party have committed deficiency in service.

11. As regards fourth point for consideration, it is the case of the complainant that though he had obtained one Samay Debit Card which was not activated but the Opposite Party realized Rs.112.24 and Rs.112.41 on two occasions from his account during the year 2006-07 and 2007-08 but in support of such allegation there is no documentary evidence to show that the said credit card was never activated on the other hand the Opposite Party debited charges as against the said card. Therefore such allegation of the complainant is not acceptable.

12. As regards the fifth point for consideration, the learned counsel for the complainant could not explain us as to what means AFM,AWF,NWF etc. and unless and until the evidence to that effect is recorded with supporting documents, merely on such allegations, it is not possible on our part to come to a conclusion that such charges as debited by the Opposite Party from the account of the complainant amounts to illegal collection, resulting to deficiency in service.

13. As regards the sixth point for consideration, there is no document forth coming from the side of the complainant to show that the cheque for Rs.20.416/- was illegally returned back to the complainant on 29.109. Similarly there is no document forth coming from the side of the complainant to show that he deposited Rs.14,100/- on 29.1.09 at 10 A.M. in his account No.2362020000361, but there was delay entry made by the computer. Therefore it is difficult on our part to say that the Opposite Party returned back the cheque amounting to Rs.20,416/- to the complainant and illegal debited Rs.300/- from the account inspite of having sufficient funds in his Account No.2362020000361.

14. As regards the last point for consideration, once we have answered all the questions in negative against the complainant, the complainant is not entitled for any of the reliefs as claimed for. Accordingly the complaint petition stands dismissed.

Judgment pronounced in the open Forum on this the 26th day of November,2009 under the seal and signature of this Forum.

C.C.CASE NO.55 OF 2006
Sri Subrata Mukherjee

256/35/3, Crooked Lane,

P.O. & P.S. Chinsurah,

P.S.Chinsurah,

Dist.Hooghly.

…. Petitioner

-vs-

1) The Manager, HDFC Bank

Ltd., Uniworth House,

3A, Gurusaday Road,

Kolkata-19.

2) The concerned Manager,

Retail Asset Division,

Gillander House,

ouse,

Hou H

1st floor, A.I.,

8, N.S.Road,

Kolkata-1

3) Siddartha Sinha,

Manager, Two wheeler loan Dept.

Retail Asset,

HDFC Bank Ltd.

Gillinder House, lst floor,

8, N.S.Road,

Kolkata-700 001

Present : D.K.Basu … President

S.Basu … Member

R.Roychowdhury Malakar … Member

Judgement delivered on 23rd November, 2009
The fact of he case in the petition is as follows :

The complainant Subrata Mukherjee by filing the instant case against the Op no.l Manager, HDFC Bank Ltd., Uniworth House, Kolkata 19, Op no.2 concerned Manager Retail Asset Division, Gillender House, 8, N.S.Road, Kolkata and oP n.3 Siddartha Sinha, Manager, two wheeler loan Dept. Retail asset, HDFC Bank Ltd. Gillinder House, 8, N.S.Road, Kolkata-1 that on 14.11. 2003 he purchased the two wheeler TVS Victor Motor Cycle vide registration no.WB 16M/9446 from Mohima Motors, at Sheoraphuli, Hooghly at a price of Rs.45715/- out of which the HDFC Bank finance Rs.31900/- after executing the agreement. The complainant used to pray loan amount through EMI scheme and or about six or seven months he wanted to know the details of loan status by supplying account statement of his loan, but in vain. On 9.5.06 the Ops through their muscle man snatched and forcibly taken away the possession of the said two wheeler from the driver Sarkar in between Barabazar to Chinsurah play ground at Chinsurah, Hooghly. He immediately rushed to the local P.S. for entering the fact in general diary but in vain.

On the same day at about 4.0 P.M. he sent a complaint to the P.S. through courier service. The entire action of the Ops are illegal , arbitrary and criminal in nature. By filing this case he has prayed for a direction upon the Ops to pay Rs.60,000/- as punitive damages, a direction upon the Ops to restore the vehicle in good and fit condition, a direction upon the Ops to refund the market value of the vehicle with interest, compensation of Rs.70,000/-, cost of Rs.5,000/- and other relieves.

The Op has contested this case by filing written version whereon they have denied the material averment of the complaint contending inter alia that the case is not maintainable and the complainant has purportedly sought for redressal of a dispute arising out of loan cum granting agreement whereby and whereunder the complainant had taken a loan for purchasing TVS motorcycle. Thus, the relation between the complainant and the Ops is debtor and creditor which is outside the scope and purview of this Act. It has further stated thereon that it has been held in a case by the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Karnataka that a relationship between the debtor and creditor does not fall within the scope and ambit of the Consumer Protection Act in reported case 1993(3) CPR 93 . The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal in a similar case has come into conclusion in the case of Everest Coal Sales Pvt.Ltd. –vs- Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd. being SC case no.97/O/1995 that there is no element of service against the owner and therefore such case is not maintainable. Besides, this court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this case and the case is liable to be dismissed.

In view of the above facts the following points can be taken for proper adjudication.

(1) Whether the case is maintainable in its present form ?

(2) Whether the complainant is the consumer ?

(3) Whether there caused any deficiency in service on the part of the Op ?

(4) Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for ?
FINDINGS WITH REASONS:

All the points are taken together for the sake of convenience and also for the purpose of avoiding needless repetitions .

It is admitted fact that the complainant after taking loan from the Opposite party purchased the TVS motorcycle after execution of an agreement for repayment of the said loan in EMI scheme.

It is also admitted fact that the Ops took away the said motor cycle . According to the contention of the Op the complainant was the defaulter in making payment. It is the contention for the complainant that inspite of repeated requests the OP did not hand over the account statement of his loan amount.

The learned lawyer of the complainant has filed several Rulings viz II(2005) CPJ 327, 1(2006) CPJ 46 (NC), III(2007) CPJ 161 (NC), II (2006) CPJ 194 and others. In his conclusion of argument he has stated that the Ops cannot take the possession of the said motor cycle forcibly without recourse of law and thereby caused deficiency in service.

The learned lawyer of the OP has argued that it is a clear case of loan transaction and the relation between the parties are the debtor and creditor and according to the Ruling of State Commission , Karnataka the relationship between borrower and creditor does not come within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act. He has also refereed a similar case , judgement passed by the Hon’ble State Commission, West Bengal whereon in SC case no.97/0/1995 it was observed that the case is not maintainable.

The Ruling 2006 CTJ 209(Supreme court) (CP) (March 06) it was observed “hire purchase agreement – whether a financer can seize /take possession of the vehicle financed by it in case of default on the part of the hirer in making payment of the monthly instalments ? – essentially a matter of the agreement – if the hire purchase agreement executed by the parties permits the financer to take possession of the financed vehicle, no legal impediment is to come in the way of such possession being taken – therefore, not proper for the High Courts to lay down any guidelines in this regard – such an Act would amount to variation of the agreed terms – in the case in hand repossession of the vehicle clearly permissible in terms of the hire purchase agreement- appeal allowed.”

In view of the above cited ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court to take possession of the motor cycle by the financer as per terms of the agreement does not cause any deficiency in service and the case is therefore not maintainable. Accordingly, the complainant is not entitled to get any relief .

The points are accordingly decided.

Hence ordered

That the instant case is dismissed on contest against the Ops without any cost.

Hand over a copy of this order to the parties free of cost.

The case is disposed of beyond the statutory period as the post of President remained vacant for a considerable period.

Consumer Complaint No: 03/2008
Date of presentation: 03.01.2008
Date of decision: 27.11.2009
Smt. Surinder Handa W/O Shri H.N. Handa,

Secretary, Mohan Meaking Ltd.,

Resident of K-2, Mohan Meaking Ltd. Solan Brewery,

District Solan, H.P.
… Complainant
Versus

1. M/S HDFC Chubb,

General Insurance Company Limited

5th Floor, Express Towers, Nariman Point,

Mumbai-400 021.

2. The Branch Manager,

HDFC Bank Ltd.,

Rajgarh Road, Solan.
…Opposite Parties.
For the complainant: Mr. Adit Ratti, Advocate vice

Mr. Madan Kashyap, Advocate.

For the Opposite Parties: Mr. R.C. Gupta and

Mr. B.R. Sharma Advocates.
O R D E R:

Sureshwar Thakur (District Judge) President:- This complaint has been filed by Smt. Surinder Handa, by invoking the provisions of Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant avers that, she got herself insured with the OP No.1, vide insurance policy bearing No.93626121/00001, effective from, and paid Rs.3500/- as insurance premium. It is averred that during the currency of the policy, she met with an accident resulting in knee fracture. Thereafter, she lodged the insurance claim with the OP, but the OP No.2, debited the account of the complainant with Rs.3500/-, on, 28.01.2006, without any authority and intimation to her. Hence, it is averred that there is apparent deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and accordingly relief to the extent as detailed in the relief clause be awarded in favour of the complainant.

2. The OPs, in its written version, to the complaint, besides raising preliminary objections, vis-à-vis maintainability of the complaint, jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint by this Forum, status of the complainant as a consumer, complaint being false and vexatious, admitted the issuance of the insurance policy in favour of the complainant. They further contend that the renewal of the policy is automatic, and the premium amount has already been paid to the complainant. Hence, it is denied, that, there was any deficiency in service on their part or that they have indulged in an unfair trade practice.

3. Thereafter, the parties adduced evidence, by way of affidavits, and, documents in support of their respective, contentions.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also thoroughly scanned the entire record of the case.

5. The complainant before us, is, having a grievance that the OPs, without her consent and permission, has renewed the policy, hence, debited the amount of Rs.3500/- from her account, illegally and arbitrarily, which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The OPs, in its reply, has repudiated the claim of the complainant and contended that the policy, as per the terms and conditions, was automatically renewed and when the request from the complainant for its cancellation was received, it, was cancelled, hence, premium amount of Rs.3500/- was defrayed to her.

6. The assertion of the complainant, that, the OPs, illegally and arbitrarily, without her consent renewed the policy, is, falsified from Annexure R-1, which is a copy of Bank Accident Protection Plan, whose perusal divulged the fact that the policy was automatically renewable. Hence, we find no force in the contention of the complainant that the OPs, illegally and arbitrarily and without her consent renewed the policy, rather, the action of the OPs, was, as per the terms and conditions of the policy. However, when the complainant, made a request to the OPs, for cancellation of the policy, they accordingly did the needful, hence, defrayed the premium amount of Rs.3500/- to her, through cheque, as is evident from Annexures R-7 & R-8, which documents having remained un-repulsed and un-benumbed, on, behalf of the complainant, hence, has to be accorded sanctity. Therefore, with the OPs having refunded the amount of insurance premium and the policy having been cancelled, the complainant has no cause of action to assert that the OPs, has committed deficiency in service and indulged in an unfair trade practice.

9. Resultantly, the complaint, being without any merit, deserves, dismissal and we order accordingly. No order as to the costs. The learned counsel for the parties undertook to collect the certified copy of this order from the office, free of cost, as per rules. The file after due completion, be consigned to record room. 1

Complaint No. 918/24.12.2008.

Date of order: 12.11.2009.

Sachit Kumar son of Shri Raj Kumar, resident of House No.475, near Old Grain Market, Shastri Nagar Jagraon, Distt. Ludhiana.

Vs.
HDFC Bank Limited, Court Road, Jagraon-142026, District Ludhiana through its Manager/Principal Officer.

(Opposite party)

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Quorum:

Sh. T.N. Vaidya, President.

Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Member.

Present:

Sh.Ashok Mittal Advocate for the complainant.

Sh. Ashok Rajput Advocate for opposite party.



O R D E R

T.N. VAIDYA, PRESIDENT:

1. Complainant is holder of saving bank account no.111201000113281 with OP-Bank. One Jaswant Singh issued cheque no. 943900 dated 3.4.2008 for Rs.21,300/- drawn on ICICI Bank Ltd. in his favour. Complainant presented the same to the opposite party, but it was returned being dishonoured on 23 .8.2008. Thereafter, he again presented the said original cheque to opposite party for encashment on 27.9.2008. Despite receipt of the same, till date opposite party neither returned the cheque dishonoured, nor credited amount to his account. Validity of the cheque expired on 2.10.2008. Non encashment of the cheque or not intimating him is claimed amounting to deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Hence, this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for direction to opposite party to pay Rs.21,300/- and compensation of Rs.50,000/- along with Rs.11000/- as litigation costs.

2. Opposite party in reply admitted first part of the allegations of the complainant that he presented the cheque for crediting to his account and that cheque was returned to the complainant being dishonoured. But denied that he again presented the same cheque on 27.9.2008. Qua it, his allegations are false. There is no question of crediting the amount of the cheque in his favour nor there is any deficiency in service on their part.

3. Parties led their evidence by way of affidavits and documents in support of their respective contentions.

4. We have heard the arguments addressed by the ld. counsel for the parties, gone through file, scanned the documents and other material on record.

5. Sole question is whether the complainant again presented the cheque on 27.9.2008 to opposite party for crediting the same to his saving bank account with the opposite party after referring the cheque to bank of the drawer. In support, complainant has filed his own affidavit Ex.CW1/A and also the bank slip Ex.C1 bearing date 26.9.2008 along with certificate Ex.C.2 from the OP-bank. This certificate reads as under:

“This is to confirm that we have returned one cheque of ICICI Bank with cheque no.943900 of amount Rs.21,300/- drawn in favour of Mr. Sachit Kumar on 23.8.2008. The cheque was presented again by the customer on 29.09.2008 but was misplaced in the courier and the same has been confirmed by the courier personnel.”

6. This certificate Ex.C.2 contains admission of the opposite party that they returned cheque in question on 23 8.2008. Complainant again presented it in the bank on 29.9.2008 but the cheque was misplaced in the courier.

7. Aforesaid admission of opposite party belies its defence that the cheque was never again presented to them on 29.9.2008 by the complainant. Admission being best proof , proves the claim of the complainant.

8. Cheque was lost by agent of the OP i.e. courier. Therefore, opposite party who had hired services of the courier would be liable for their negligence.

9. Complainant had brought all such aspects to notice of opposite party by serving legal notice Ex.C.3 dated 3.12.2008, which also remained unreplied.

10. By not crediting amount of the cheque to account of the complainant or not giving him any intimation, certainly would amount to deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Hence, we allow this complaint and as a result direct opposite party to credit/pay an amount of Rs.21,300/- of the cheque with 9% interest per annum from 15,.10.2008 till payment and for causing harassment, agony and thrusting this litigation on him, ordered to pay compensation and litigation cost compositely assessed at Rs.2000/-(Rs. Two Thousand only). Compliance of the order be made within 45 days of the receipt of copy of the order, which be made available to the parties free of costs. File be completed and consigned to record.

C.C.No.98 of 2008
BETWEEN:
Moparthi Sambasiva Rao,

S/o. Nagaiah,

R/o. D.No.23,

Appapuram Village and Post,

Kakumanu Mandal,

Guntur District. … Complainant

AND

The Branch Manager,

Rep. on behalf of HDFC Securities Limited,

D.No.104, Ram’s Plaza,

2nd line, Dwaraka Nagar,

Visakhapatnam – 530 016. … Opposite party

This complaint coming up before us for final hearing on 24-11-09 in the presence of Sri P.V.Ramana, Advocate for complainant and of Sri G.Sai Krishna Srinivas, Advocate for opposite party, upon perusing the material on record, hearing both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum made the following:

O R D E R

Per Sri M.V.L.Radha Krishna Murthy, Member:

This complaint is filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant praying to pass an award for Rs.95,000/- against the opposite party, which comprises of Rs.50,000/- towards loss of transaction, Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony, Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and Rs.10,000/- towards legal expenses.

The averments of complaint in brief are as follows:

The complainant opened saving bank account and as well as D Mat account (D-Materialization) bearing No.1891070056532 in opposite party bank and used to trade shares with online banking facility. The complainant used to visit the office of opposite party situated at Visakhapatnam and trade share business under due process. Sometimes the complainant trade on phone line facility with the opposite party which was duly received and recorded by opposite party in their computer for record purpose.

On 22-01-08 as no amount is in balance, the complainant was unable to trade at that day. The complainant neither issued any phone instructions nor personal instructions to opposite party. But on 22-01-08 the opposite party purchased Ispat Industries features of shares lot Rs.4,140/- @ Rs.34/- per share which totally Rs.1,40,760/-and the same was sold @ Rs.34.50 ps. The opposite party also purchased Bajaj Hind January features lot Rs.950/- @ Rs.147/- which is totally Rs.1,39,650/- and again sold @ Rs.155/-. The above two shares purchased and sold without approval and instructions of complainant.

Thus the opposite party committed deficiency of service. The complainant sustained huge loss due to the said act of opposite party. The complainant sustained financial loss of Rs.10,000/-. The complainant is entitled to claim the loss caused by opposite party by way of compensation. Hence, the complaint.

The opposite party filed its version, which is in brief as follows:

The complainant opened trading account with HSL and executed agreement on 03-05-07. Thus there is no privity of contract between this opposite party and the complainant. Hence, there is no cause of action against this opposite party. The complainant acted against the stipulation and mutual agreement enshrined in clauses 13, 49 and 51 of Client Agreement by approaching this Forum. As per clause 13 of agreement “the client and the stock broker agree to refer any claims and/or disputes to arbitration as per the Rules, Byelaws and Regulations of the Exchange and circulars issued there under as may be in force from time to time. The complainant himself was aware of his transactions including outstanding positions in the Futures & Market (F&O) segment of capital market and debit balances in his open, mutual and current ledger account in the books of accounts of HSL. The complainant used to visit the office of this opposite party and place his orders in equity/futures & options segments of capital market. In confirmation of trade done the complainant sign deal slips which contain the details of trades done by client on a particular date. The complainant had duly consented and authorized the trades done, for which deal slips were duly signed by him. The complainant opened accounts with HDFC bank. The complainant had instructed to purchase 4150 nos. of futures of Ispat Industries at a gross rate of Rs.32.85 and same was sold on his instructions at a gross rate of Rs.33.40, resulting into profit to a tune of Rs.2282.50 in the scrip. Regarding Bajaj Hind futures on 22-01-08, 950 nos. were purchased at a gross rate of Rs.148/- and the same was sold on 23-01-08 at a gross rate of Rs.155/- at the instructions of complainant. The said transaction resulted in profit of Rs.6650/- to the complainant. Though the complainant has made a profit in the aforesaid transactions, he is claiming loss sustained for the same. There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. Demand notices were sent by HSL to the registered email address of complainant on 21-01-08 and 22-01-08 asking the complainant to fund his savings account adequately or deposit appropriate collaterals and in case of nonpayment requisite margin amounts, HSL may be constrained to square up the positions taken by the complainant. The complainant also requested HSL to track his open F&O positions during the course of trading session every day and monitor margin requirements. On 22-01-08 all trades were executed under due authorization and express instructions of complainant and in confirmation of trade the complainant signed deal slips duly filled. There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. The contract notes were also sent to the complainant in electronic form by HSL to the email address of complainant. The complainant might have incurred loss due to sudden fall of market but not due to the act of opposite party. The complainant has a debit balance of Rs.17,588.98, as on 23-01-08, which is still due and payable by the complainant. Hence, the complainant may be dismissed with costs.

The complainant filed affidavit in support of his complaint reiterating the same. On behalf of opposite party a memo was filed to treat the version as affidavit.

On behalf of complainant Ex.A1 to A3 are marked. On behalf of opposite party Ex.B1 to B6 are marked.

Ex.A1 is the contract note dt.23-01-08, Ex.A2 is the cover issued by opposite party, Ex.A3 is the terms of trading.

Ex.B1 is the client agreement executed by complainant, Ex.B2 is the deal slips signed by the complainant for transaction made on 22-01-08 and 23-01-08, Ex.B3 is the letters addressed by opposite party to complainant stating that there is margin short fall of Rs.1,77,616/- at the end of 22-01-08 and requested him to fund his savings account and deposit appropriate collaterals after haircut values for the said amount. The opposite party is constrained to square up positions of complainant in case of nonpayment of requisite margin amount. Ex.B4 is the contract note dt.22-01-08. Ex.B5 is the logs of electronic contract notes, Ex.B6 is the statement of account of complainant.

Now the points for consideration are that

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party?

2. To what relief the complainant is entitled?

POINTS 1 & 2

It is the case of complainant that on 22-01-08, the opposite party purchased Ispat Industries features of shares lot Rs.4,140/- @ Rs.34/- per share which totally Rs.1,40,760/-and sold the same @ Rs.34.50 ps. The opposite party also purchased Bajaj Hind January features lot Rs.950/- @ Rs.147/- the total value there of is which is totally Rs.1,39,650/- and again sold @ Rs.155/- without his approval and instructions and caused loss to him.

It is the case of opposite party that they have purchased and sold the said shares in question with the instructions of complainant only and that the said transactions resulted in profit of Rs.6650/- to the complainant and that there is no loss to him due to said transaction. In confirmation of said transaction, the complainant signed on a deal slip under Ex.B2. Hence, there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party.

As seen from Ex.B2, the deal slips dt.22-01-08 and 23-01-08 they are duly signed by complainant in confirmation of trade made there under by the opposite party. As seen from Ex.B3 letters dt.21-01-08 and 22-01-08, the complainant was informed that there is margin short fall of Rs.1,77,616/- at the end of 22-01-08 in Futures & Options segment and that he was requested to fund savings account and deposit appropriate collaterals after haircut values for the said amount. The opposite party is constrained to square up positions of complainant in case of nonpayment of requisite margin amount. It is not the case of complainant that he paid requisite margin amount as required by opposite party. In absence of payment of margin amount, the opposite party is at liberty to clear up the positions of complainant. Further in the alleged transaction made on 22-01-08 regarding Ispat Industries features of shares and Bajaj Hind January features, the complainant not sustained any loss. The said two transactions resulted in profit of Rs.6650/- to complainant. The loss caused to complainant was not due to above said transactions. Moreover, the said transactions were duly confirmed by the complainant by signing deal slip Ex.B2. Hence, he cannot claim that he has no knowledge and without his knowledge the opposite party has made the said transactions.

Thus in view of foregoing discussion, we find that there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed. Each party shall bear their own costs.

Dictated to Junior Steno, transcribed by her, corrected by us and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 30th day of November, 2009.