I am the holder of Visa Platinum Plus Credit Card of HDFC bank with number
4050 2820 0104 0018. I have been using this card since April 2007 for
purchases etc and have also been making payments of the due amounts on a
monthly basis regularly. Yet for the past few months I have been getting the
impression that the total outstanding due on the card does not decrease. In
fact sometimes after making the payments, I find that the next billing
statement reflects a higher total outstanding than that of the previous
months. This is all very confusing for me.
I have approached the Customer Care dept of the bank but their answers are
not satisfactory. The agencies (or whosoever appointed by the bank) for
collection of dues are forcing me to pay atleast the minimum amount due.I
have paid an amount of Approx 1,78,000/- till date towards dues on the card
and would have continued to do so had I not realised that something is
going terribly wrong.My stand is that since I have not received satisfactory
answers to my queries, I will make the payments only after my queries are
satisfactorily sorted out.I am entitled to this right as a customer of the
bank.
I have requested the calling party to clarify their stand by correspondence
but my request has been flatly turned down. Instead they keep calling me at
unearthly hours and try to bully me.As a customer of the bank, I do not
approve of this behaviour. I want these calls stopped with immediate effect
( Ph. Nos. 02261456400,02239542400), failing which I may consider myself
free to take any action which may seem appropriate to me.
I have requested the bank to send me in writing their clarifications on the
matter to which I can correspond.I may also consider approaching the
consumer court if I am convinced that there is some discrepancy in the
matter.I wish to inform you of the same.

This is regarding threatening calls being made by HDFC credit card
department . 4 years ago There was a wrong transaction of Rs 10,000 in my
Credit card statement which was not settled . Now after a long period I am
receiving calls that you have to make payment of Rs 60,000 otherwise bank
will suit case. Since last 4 years I have not received any credit card
statement or any enquiry from HDFC bank. Now suddenly they are pressurising
to make payment of Rs 60,000

Calls received from this no :011-65763848 Dated 13.11.2009 Name : Shivani
Chauhan Advocate : Delhi

Please guide and suggest for the action

Regards
Ravinder Pal
Mobile :09416552621

Sir,
My name is Shweta Dhar,i had picked up a loan from HDFC Bank Mumbai
last year.I had been making regular payments of the emi.but than i had to
leave my job because i was getting married and had to shift from
mumbai.After sometime my husband use to make the payment.But unfortunately
due to recession my husband lost his job so since than no one is working in
my family,and im not able to pay the EMI regularly since 8months.

Last month a person(Chaturvedi) from HDFC collection mumbai called me and
started using very bad and abusive languages.Being a female i could not take
it.Then he called my mother and did the same.Sir i just wanted to tell you i
dont have a father and my mother,grandmother stay alone.After hearing all
that from the person my grandmother was on a verge to get a heart attack.

I logged a complain in hdfc bank also but nothing happened.This person is
still calling me and harassing me.My husband is the only male member in his
family,he has his sister's(Still Unmarried) and his mother(Diabetic patient)
to take care.We have to sell our stuff to get our ends meet.

Sir me and my husband are trying for a job but our ill luck we are not able
to get any.
Please do help me sir,as im even scared to pick any calls which come from
mumbai numbers.

Please sir help me.

Thank you
Shweta Dhar

Dear Sir/Mam,
I am a hdfc bank customer having saving account (04851540004760) and also
having
Credit Card of the same bank (No.: 4346781005175377). But I am facing big
problem
from this Bank side. i am having some outstanding amount in my Credit Card
but I
am depositting it monthly basis.Instead of that whenever i've deposited any
amount in my
saving account or any check was deposited for clearing in my acc.,bank
people are capturing
that amount and deducting it from my saving account. For this reason i am
loosing my amount
and facing a great trouble. one of their executive when visited to me for
collection of cheque,
i hav also told the same problem and he assured me that will never happen in
future but still
the same problem is going on.
Kindly take action and suggest me for the necessary steps.
--
Thanking you
Regards,

Masudur Rahaman
BSS Engineer
Nokia-Siemens Networks
(M) : 9936885076

I shekappa sanghed wants to inform you about happening between me and HDFC
bank,

i took loan from HDFC bank on 05/12/08 of rs 1,95000 due to some critical
circumstance

i could not pay loan after 6 EMI of rs 5478

so i got LOK ADALAT notice last month 26/10/2009 there i have settled the
amount of rs 1,70,000, of 4 installment,

Now already i have paid first installment 21000 ,

But again HDFC bank have sent one more LOK ADALAT notice of Paying Rs 3817
so this has become mental harassment for me ,

i am going to send Legal Notice To HDFC ,



Loan Account number:14167760



shekappa bangalore

Thanks
Shekappa
9008556554

COMPLAINT NO.2150/08
DATED THIS THE 4th NOVEMBER 2009
PRESENT
SRI.D. KRISHNAPPA, PRESIDENT
SRI. GANGANARASAIAH, MEMBER
SMT. ANITA SHIVAKUMAR. K, MEMBER

Complainants:

Angsuman Mukherjee

Flat Number:304

Chamundi Crystal Apartment

Hulimavu

Near Bhagwati Temple

Bannerghatta Road

Bangalore-560 076

V/s
Opposite Parties:

1. H.D.F.C. Bank

BA-3

Sector I

Salt Lake City

Kolkata-700 064



2. HDFC Bank

37/953, 24th Main Road

Sarakki 2nd Stage

J.P.Nagar 2nd Phase

Bangalore-560 078



O R D E R
SRI.D. KRISHNAPPA, PRESIDENT:


The brief facts of the complaint presented by the complainant against the Ops in brief is, that he has maintained an SB Account in HDFC Bank, Salt Lake City, Kolkata. That on 31/03/2009 a sum of Rs.598/- was deducted from his account towards refilling of a prepaid mobile account which he is not aware. Then he contacted the branch of Op and discussed about this. He also sent number of mails to the Ops and had even visited J.P. Nagar, Bangalore Branch to know the phone number which has recharged using his account. But the said branch did not shared that information with him and then on 11/06 he got an email from his home branch manager who gave him the phone number towards which an amount of Rs.598/- was paid and released is the phone number of Delhi person. Then in the meantime Ops informed him, responding to his complaint and they blocked the unused amount of Rs.139/-. That he has found that the Ops have not given any reason in not reversing entry by retransferring Rs.598/- to his account, therefore contending that he has lost faith in the Ops bank has prayed for compensation of Rs.5.00 lakhs.



Ops have filed their version through their advocate contended that clause 11.25 of the procedure indicated the risk that may be associated with net banking like misuse of pass words, internet frauds, mistakes and errors, transactions risk and technology risk. That misusing of complainant’s account could be on the failure of the complainant from logging out completely from the net banking facilities while having used it. The pass word and customer ID being shared with some third person then the third person obtained the access to the net banking pass word of the complainant has operated. It is further contended by them that the complainant after having understood all these risks signed the application form of the bank and has accepted the risks that come across and accepted the procedure that is being followed. The transactions in question has arisen due to the pass word of the complainant having come to the knowledge of some third person found to have transferred a sum of Rs.598/- towards refilling of prepaid mobile account which would not have been possible without the knowledge of the identification number of the complainant. Though there is a disclaimer clause they made sincere effort in tracing the veracity of the transactions done. That they after coming to know the transactions from the complainant that unused amount of Rs.139/- was transferred to the account of the complainant on 30/05/2008. Internet banking systems are absolutely safe and secure and every day millions of transactions are processed through internet banking system by the customers of the bank who are satisfied with the service. Net banking facilities is one that permits the account holders to access and operate their bank accounts online and also includes facility of transferring money from one account to another. That customer ID and net banking pass word provided to the complainant was highly confidential in nature and the complainant was also advised and cautioned not to reveal the customer ID and pass word. Op further given details of net banking system has denied any deficiency by them in transferring the amount from the account of the complainant and attributing to the negligence of the complainant in having not maintained the secrecy of personal identity card and the pass word and it is because of third party who has gained the pass word and identity of the complainant’s card has got that amount transferred through net banking system and thereby has denied his liability.



In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant and the branch manager of Ops have filed their affidavit evidence reproducing what they have stated in their respective complaint and version. The complainant produced copies of certain e-mails that he had addressed to Ops. Ops have not produced any documents. Heard the counsel for both the parties and perused the records.



On the above materials following points for determination arise.



1. Whether the complainant proves that the Ops have negligently transferred a sum of Rs.598/- from his account to the advantage of a third party and thereby caused deficiency in their service.

2. To what relief the complainant is entitled to?

Point No.1 : In the negative.

Point No.2: To see the final order.



REASONS:



Answer on point No.1 :



The complainant in the complaint and also in his affidavit evidence stated that on 31/03/2008 a sum of Rs.598/- was deducted from his account towards refilling of pre-paid mobile account which he is not aware. He has further stated that when he approached the Op about this withdrawal the Op immediately blocked the unused amount of Rs.139/- out of the amount with drawn from his account. Further, the allegations of the complainant and the version filed by the Op reveal that withdrawal of Rs.598/- from the account of the complainant has been done through internet banking system. Op has further stated that customer Id and net banking pass word is confidential information known to the consumers and that the complainant alone. Unless the complainant in any manner divulges that I.D and pass word no one can operate the account. As seen from the pleadings of complainant he has not attributed any negligence to the OP so also deficiency in their service. It is common knowledge that without the customer ID, Credit or Debit Card numbers and net banking pass word no one can operate the account. The complainant himself has stated in his complaint and also affidavit evidence that amount of Rs.598/- was transferred towards refilling of a prepaid mobile account and with mobile telephone number traced to a person in Delhi. The Ops stated he had advised and cautioned that the complainant to whom certain conditions are given to maintain absolute secrecy of customer ID and pass word this has not been denied by the complainant. Therefore it appears that a person said to be from Delhi through ID card and pass word of the complainant has withdrawn the amount. When such an act of withdrawal made through net banking working system, the bank or Ops cannot even smell of fraud or wrongful withdrawal. It is even stated by the Ops that when withdrawal was made by a third person from the account of the complainant through his ID and password they could not stop it unless they smell about illegal withdrawal. How the complainant’s ID and Pass word number came to be used by that offender is a question that directs towards the complainant. Therefore, it implies that the complainant since had not maintained the secrecy of his ID and pass word with absolute security found to have led a stranger to operate the amount of the complainant.



The complainant has not rebutted the stand of the Op regarding the method of net banking system and impossibility of operating a bank account when the ID and pass word of a customer is not known. In the case on hand, as we found a third party has operated the complainant account which could not be stopped by the Op and when that is so the role of the Op in such cases is very limited, until they are informed about the illegal operation of an account which is operated under net banking system. Hence, by considering the entire materials placed before us and on hearing the complainant, we found that the complainant has not been able to prove the deficiency of the Op in their services as such the complainant cannot be maintained. In the situation of this it is for the customer who opted net banking system should be careful in maintaining their Id and pass word with absolute security. Hence, first point is answered in the negative and pass the following order.



O R D E R



Complaint is dismissed.

1. Thiru M. Ponnuvel,

S/o. Murugesan,

16, Kuditheru,

Sivanaickenpatti Post,

Namakkal Taluk.


2. Tamil Nadu Beneficiary Association

by its Secretary Thiru K. Subrayan,

40-B1, Senthamangalam Salai,

Namakkal. .. Complainants



.Vs.

1. H.D.F.C. Bank Ltd.,

by its Manager,

(CD Loan – Two Wheeler Dept),

1049-50, Thomothar Centre,

Avinasi Road,

Coimbatore - 641 004.



2. H.D.F.C. Bank Ltd.,

by its Manager,

Salem Road,

Namakkal. ..Opposite Parties.



This complaint coming on for final hearing before us on 04.11.2009 in the presence of Thiru K. Subrayan, Secretary, Tamil Nadu Beneficiary Association for Complainant No.1 and the Opposite Parties called absent, set exparte and after hearing the arguments, this Forum passed the following:
ORDER

This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.
The crux of the complaint is:-

The 1st Complainant is the aggrieved consumer and the 2nd Complainant is the voluntary consumer organization representing the consumer. The 1st complainant has obtained a two-wheeler vehicle loan of Rs.24,000/- from the opposite party for purchasing Bajaj Boxer vide Loan No.1241494. The repayment schedule is Rs.855/- per month for 36 months. The said vehicle was registered as TN-28-M-0869. The 1st Complainant has paid 29 equated monthly installments i.e. till July 2007. He was not able to pay 31st and 32nd EMI due to medical expenses incurred by him. the complainant has paid 33rd and 34th EMI. The 1st Complainant has to pay only 3 EMI’s. While so henchmen of the opposite party has threatened the 1st complainant’s wife and forcibly took away the vehicle. The complainant has lodged complaint with police and later came to know that the opposite party has sold the 1st complainant’s vehicle. The complainant alleges deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and has lodged this complaint for return of the amount paid, compensation, cost etc.

2. The complainant has filed proof affidavit along with documents and the same has been marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A7.

3. The point for consideration is:-

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

opposite party and if so to what relief the complainant is

entitled for?

4. POINT:- The 1st complainant is the aggrieved consumer and the 2nd complainant is the voluntary consumer organization representing the consumer. The 1st complainant has obtained a two-wheeler vehicle loan of Rs.24,000/- from the opposite party for purchasing Bajaj Boxer vide Loan No.1241494. The repayment schedule is Rs.855/- per month for 36 months. This has been established by the Complainant by Ex.A1 and Ex.A3. The said vehicle was registered as TN-28-M-0869 and the copy of RC book has been placed before us by the Complainant. The 1st Complainant has paid 29 equated monthly installments i.e. till July 2007. This has been established by the Complainant by producing the pass book and receipts issued by the opposite party as Ex.A4 and Ex.A5. He was not able to pay 31st and 32nd EMI due to medical expenses incurred by him. The complainant has paid 33rd and 34th EMI. The 1st Complainant has to pay only 3 EMI’s. While so henchmen of the opposite party has threatened the 1st complainant’s wife and forcibly took away the vehicle. The opposite party ought not to have taken law into their own hands. The complainant came to know that his vehicle has been repossessed by the opposite party only after lodging the police complaint. The opposite party ought to have re-possessed the vehicle through due process of law. The Apex Court and various High Courts have come down heavily on the financial institutions/banks for engaging goons as collection agent.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in

ICICI Bank

Vs.

Shanti Devi Sharma & Others

reported in 2008 (8) SCR 973 reiterated its earlier stand that banks cannot deploy musclemen for recovery of loans from defaulters thus forcing them to end their lives. “We deem it appropriate to remind the banks and other financial institutions that we live in a civilised country and are governed by the rule of law”, a bench comprising Justices Tarun Chatterjee and Dalveer Bhandari said. The Court while dismissing the ICICI Bank’s plea refused to delete the Delhi High Court’s remarks that held the bank and its musclemen responsible for abetting a youth to commit suicide by humiliating him and taking away his motorcycle financed by the largest private sector bank. It also asked the ICICI Bank to pay Rs.25,000/- as cost of this litigation to the respondents within three weeks and directed the Delhi Police to conclude the investigation against the bank expeditiously within three months, keeping in view the gravity of the allegations.

5. According to the court, complaints received by Reserve Bank regarding violation of the above guidelines and adoption of abusive practices followed by banks recovery agents would be viewed seriously. Reiterating the RBI Guidelines on Engagement of Recovery Agents, the court said, “The Reserve Bank may consider imposing a ban on a bank from engaging recovery agents in a particular area, either jurisdictional or functional, for a limited period. In case of persistent breach of above guidelines, Reserve Bank may consider extending the period of ban or the area of ban”.

“RBI had expressed its concern about the number of litigations filed against the banks in the recent past for engaging recovery agents who have purportedly violated the law,” Justice Bhandari, writing the verdict for the bench, stated.

RBI in a letter accompanying its April 24, 2008 Guidelines had stated that it might consider imposing a ban on a bank from engaging recovery agents in a particular area, either jurisdictional or functional, for a limited period.

In view of the above discussion we have no hesitation to hold that the act of opposite party as deficiency in service. The complainant would have definitely suffered mental agony and as such as he entitled for compensation.

6. In the result, the complaint is allowed and the opposite party is directed to refund Rs.31,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum (being the amount paid as EMI by the complainant) to the complainant. Further the opposite party is directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.1,000/- as cost. Time for payment one month from the date of this order.

Dictated to the Steno-Typist, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in Open Forum, this the 12th day of November,2009.

with due regards,

i would inform you that i am a resident of new delhi. for last one week i
have been receiving daily hundreds of calls from hdfc to pay the due amount
of credit card of a person poonam. i don,t know who is this person poonam
and denied many times. daily i recieve the call with much of abusive
language and obscene languages. what is the status of the hdfc and just to
torture the citizens.

*I WILL NOT TOLERATE THIS NOW AND IF THIS IS NOT RESOLVED WITH IN 2 DAYS, I
WILL DRAG THE HDFC AND THE CONCERINING PERSON TO CONSUMER COURT AND TAKE
LEGAL PROCEDDING.*
*
*
*I AM PROVIDING *YOU THE NUMBER FROM WHERE I AM RECEIVING THE CALL
0114314500, 01166219061, 43145200, 43145300,*
*
The person who called me was
mr. Rahul
Mr. ankur bhardwaj (9810656500) DEPUTY MANAGER
mr. amit

and many more, all from RAJOURI GARDEN recovery agency DELHI
they told themselves as recovery agent and theratened me to use muscle
power

*TAKE URGENT ACTIONS ELSE I KNOW MY LEGAL RIGHTS AND WELL INFORMED OF MY
RIGHTS.**
*

I AM NOT GIVING MY ADDRESS OR PHONE NO. DELEBRATELY TO AVOID ANY
CONTROVERSY. YOU CAN CONTACT ME THROUGH REPLYING ON THIS EMAIL ID.*
*
*YOUR/S
*
*A TOUTURED CITIZEN
*
*SACHIN BANSAL

Hi Team,

This is regarding the bad experience I had today dated on 30-Nov-09 with
regards to 2 of my calls to HDFC credit card call centre. Let me explain
the issue as below:-

My self Shiva Shankar K V I had a Gold credit card of HDFC Bank No:-
4346 **** **** 3249 on 17-Oct-09 I saw a offer in Univercell in
jayanagar 9th block branch they had a offer for HDFC credit card
customers that if the customer take a cell phone he /she would be
eligible for 5% cash back I had called up the customer care on the same
day & spoken to a guy unable to get the name he told me the offer is
valied & I can enjoy the same. I took a mobile phone for 5500rs & later
on the same day 17-Oct-09 I made a payment of 7000rs towards my HDFC
credit card both these we reflected in my monthly statement but the cash
back amount was not reflected in the statement I taught after doing the
payment for this month (Nov 09) the same may get added to my account but
even after making the payment the 5% cash back is still not reflecting
in my account when I check the same online. Today 30-Nov-09 I called up
to customer care with regards to above issue1 call @ 8:45am spoken to
Pallavi I told her the above concern she told me I need to check on the
same & kept me on hold for more than 6 min (it was dead air no hold
music) the call was for about 11min & 48Sec since there was no response
I had to hang up the phone which in turn made me angry I called up 2
time @ 9:20am I spoke to Bhavya I asked her to transfer the call to TL ,
Manager or any floor supervisor I was shocked to here from her there is
no one available on floor all would come only by 10:30am I wonder when
customer has a concern & there is no manager on floor to help me out
well this is not final she added on more word that there is no offer of
5% cash back the offer is withdrawn effective 30-Sep-09. My question
when there is no offer why should HDFC bank or Univercell should put up
a posture & fool the customers. Moreover after all this I was promised
by Bhavya that I would get a call from her manager Sandesh by 10:05am I
wonder it is this year or next year still waiting for the same. I still
have no hopes from HDFC bank.


Tell me as a customer should I need to go & complaint on HDFC bank for
false offer or Univercell for wrong posture.
Awaiting for a positive response.

Shiva Shankar K.V.

Team Manager - Operations

Allsec Technologies Ltd.

Mobile: 91-98860-97724.

C.C.No.68/2009

Sandhyarani Routray,

Res. of Talatelengabazar,PO:Telengabazar,

Dist:Cuttack. … Complainant.

Vrs.

1. Branch Manager,

Sri Ananta Agencies,Plot No.266,

Bapujinagar,Bhubaneswar.



2. Branch Manager,

HDFC Bank Ltd.,

Bajrakabati Road,Cuttack. … Opposite Parties.



JUDGMENT DT.2.12.09


Sri Lingaraj Khadanga,Member
Alleging deficiency in service in not issuing NOC and non-supply of statement of accounts, this case has been filed claiming issuance of NOC along with compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/-,cost of litigation Rs.5000/- etc on the following grounds.

1. The case of the complainant, in brief, is that for earning her livelihood she availed a loan of Rs.22,940/- from the Opposite Party No.2 on 14.7.06 and another loan of Rs.39,876/- on 22.9.97 for running small business and as per terms of the agreement, both the above loans have been cleared up in 14 and 15 equal instalments respectively in due time. In token of deposit of the instalments, she produces receipts issued by Opposite Party and from copy of the pass book at annex-1 series. After clearance of all instalments she approached the Opposite Party No.2 for supply of NOC but the said Opposite Party instead of issuing NOC demands some more more outstanding by not supplying any statement of accounts. Further she has been threatened for initiation of coercive action against her for non-payment of the outstanding dues. Hence the case.

2. Opposite Party No.1 has never appeared inspite of service of notice and hence he has been made exparte vide orders dt.13.7.09.

3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party No.2 has filed written version twice i.e. on 16.8.09 and 2.9.09. In both the versions he has challenged maintainability of the case since the loans, in question, were sanctioned at Bhubaneswar, loan documents signed at Bhubaneswar and there arises no cause of action in the jurisdiction of this Forum. He has further indicated that the complainant was a defaulter in payment of the E.M.Is and there is some more amount due against her. For default in payment of E,M.Is, her vehicle was taken into possession as the vehicle stood mortgaged against the loan and same was hypothecated to the Opposite Party. In both the versions, it has been stated that this Opposite Party is willing to release the said vehicle subject to payment of total outstanding dues of Rs.20,106/- as the agreement period is over. On the above grounds he prays to dismiss the case against him.

4. In course of hearing on 18.11.09 the learned counsel for Opposite Party No.2 was absent and the learned counsel for complainant assured to clear Rs.20,106/- to the Opposite Party within a given time and requested for issuance of NOC and release of the vehicle after liquidation of the loans. After hearing the learned counsel for the complainant and his departure, the learned counsel for Opposite Party No.2 appeared and as per the advice, he produced written note of argument at a subsequent date. In the written notes of argument, he has totally contradicted from what has been indicated in the versions and further states that the question of seizure of the vehicle on payment of Rs.20,106/- has no relevance with the case. Further, as in the version, he has challenges the maintainability of the case on the ground of jurisdiction.

5. From above, the issues resting for consideration are whether the case is not maintainable for lack of jurisdiction or not?

We agree to the learned counsel for Opposite Party No.2 that the loan was sanctioned at Bhubaneswar and all loan documents signed there. But on perusal of copy of the pass book and receipts furnished by the learned counsel for the complainant at Annex-2 & 4 series we find the instalments have been paid and collected at Cuttack. Since being a part of cause of action, we hold that the case is maintainable in this Forum.

Issue No.2: Whether there has been any deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party No.2 in non-issuance of NOC etc?

The learned counsel for the complainant can not produce any evidence to the effect that she has asked for NOC after clearance of all instalments of the loan as contended by her in the complaint petition. Further there is no evidence before us that she approached the said Opposite Party to supply the statement of accounts. But the fact remains that the Opposite Party No.2 has not sent any demand notice/statement of accounts/prior notice before seizure of the vehicle which was hypothecated to them as indicated in the version. It has been clearly indicated in both the versions that there is an outstanding dues of Rs.20,106/- and this Opposite Party is willing to release the vehicle after payments of this outstanding dues. This specific mention in the version is relied by us. The complainant has also not received any prior notice before seizure of the vehicle, demand notice etc. For their inactions we hold that this Opposite Party No.2 is deficient in services.

Issue No.3: What reliefs the complainant is entitled to?

The learned counsel for the complainant assures to clear the outstanding dues to the tune of Rs.20,106/- within a span of one month. Hence we direct the complainant to deposit the above amounts with Opposite Party No.2 within a span of one month and O.P No.2 is directed to release the vehicle after receipt of the above amount within a further span of 7 days including issuance of NOC within that period. In addition to this, the Opposite Party No.2 will also pay a compensation of Rs.5000/- and litigation cost of Rs.500/- to the complainant for the deficiency in service caused by him.

Judgment pronounced in the open Forum on this the 2nd day of December,2009 under the seal and signature of this Forum

consumer case(CC) No. CC/07/174

Indu Hasmukh Sangani
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

HDFC Bank Ltd. and another
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:


Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




ORDER

In the Court of the

Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,

8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, Kolkata-700087.



CDF/Unit-I/Case No. 174 / 2007



1) Indu Hasmukh Sangani,

Khadia Complex, Badkas Chawk,

Mahal, Nagpur-440002. ---------- Complainant



---Verses---
1) HDFC Bank Ltd., Regional Head Ofiice,

Sarat Bose Road, Kolkata.


2) HDFC Bank,

Stephen House, B.B.D. Bag,

Kolkata-700001. ---------- Opposite Party

Present : Sri S. K. Majumdar, President.

Sri T.K. Bhattachatya, Member.

Order No. 2 1 Dated 0 3 / 1 2 / 2 0 0 9 .

1. The instant case arises out of the petition of complaint filed on 31.5.07 by the complainant Mrs. Indu Hasmukh Sangani w/o Late Hasmukh V. Sangani, residing at Khadia Complex, Badkas Chawk Mahal, Nagpur-440002 against (1) HDFC Bank Ltd., Regional Head Office, Sarat Bose Road, Kolkata, P.S. Shakespeare Sarani and (2) HDFC Bank Ltd., Stephen House, B.B.D. Bag, Kolkata-1 with a prayer to (a) direct the o.ps to produce the account opening form of the account in question, (b) direct the o.ps. to pay Rs.60,000/- to the complainant as her share to the money deposited in the said account, (c) pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation for causing mental pain and agony to the complainant and (d) pay Rs.5000/- to the complainant as litigation cost.



2. Specific case is that Hasmukh V. Sangani, husband of the complainant, had opened current A/C no.0082320008316 in the HDFC Bank, Stephen House Branch, B.B.D. Bag, Kolkata-1 as proprietor of Shree Hari Traders.

3. On 1.2.04 the complainant’s husband expired and as such the said proprietorship firm became non est in the eyes of law.

4. The complainant stated that the said current account was in the name of the proprietorship firm and required to be closed on the expiry of the proprietor. It was also stated by the complainant that she verbally intimated the Branch Manager of the concerned Branch of the Bank about the demise of her husband Hasmukh V. Sangani and asked the Branch Manager to close the said account and the Bank Manager assured her that this would be taken care of.



5. The complainant stated that subsequently on 25.1.07 one of the creditors of Shree Hari Traders, viz. Sanghar Exports deposited a demand draft for an amount of Rs.3 lakhs only in the closed account of the proprietorship firm and such deposit was accepted by the bank even after knowing that the account was closed down long time back.

6. Immediately the complainant had called the customer care of the bank to know the status of the draft which was deposited in the closed account. From customer care the complainant was told that the money was kept in the account and the account kept operative in spite of the request made to close the same.

7. Subsequently, some time in the first week of April, 2007 it came to the knowledge from the customer care executive that there was no money in the account in spite of the deposit of Rs.3 lakhs by Sanghar Export by demand draft.

8. The complainant is one of the heir of Late Hasmukh V. Sangani and as such is entitled to receive one fifth share of the total sum which was deposited since Late Hasmukh V. Sangani was survived by two sons and two daughters.

9. The complainant has stated that from the office of the said bank she had come to know that the o.p. had debited the whole deposit of Rs.3 lakh only leading to a nil deposit in the account by resorting to unfair trade practices.
10. Hence the case has been filed against the o.ps. by the complainant.

11. Decision with reasons:-

(a) Perused the petition of complaint (though not on affidavit, but mentioned as affidavit), w/v of the o.ps., BNA of o.ps. and documents on record from which it is evident that the complainant is not a consumer u/s 2(d)(i) of C.P. Act, 1986 as the mandate of the said current account was given to (a) Vikram H. Sangani and (b) Sanjay H. Sangani beside the applicant Hasmukh V. Sangani himself to operate the said account (annex-A, B & C of w/o of o.ps.) and not to the complainant. In fact, the complainant had never been able to establish that she got the mandate from her husband in relation to the operation of this current account in question.



(b) From the records and documents on record it appears that the matter in question is totally civil in nature. As such, this Forum is not the appropriate place for the redress of the complainant. The question of whether the complainant is entitled to one fifth share of the money deposited in the said current account in question cannot be settled in this forum.



12. Hence, ordered,

that the complainant’s grievance being civil in nature, the instant case is dismissed. However, she has been given the liberty to approach the appropriate court/authority for her redress. Nor order is passed as to cost. Thus, the case is disposed of from this Forum.


Fees paid are correct.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties on receipt of prescribed fees.

Complaint Case No.: 1550 of 2008

Date of Inst:29.12.2008

Date of Decision:29.12.2009.
1. Ashok Paul Jagga s/o Late Sh.R.P.Jagga.

2. Aalok Jagga s/o Sh.A.P.Jagga.

Both residents of House No.755, Sector 22-A, Chandigarh.

---Complainants


V E R S U S
1. HDFC Bank Ltd., SCO 64-65, First Floor, Old Passport Building, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh formerly known as Centurion Bank of Punjab.
2. HDFC Bank Ltd., Sector 9, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh formerly known as Centurion Bank of Punjab.
---Opposite Parties



QUORUM

SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT

SMT.URVASHI AGNIHOTRI MEMBER

SHRI ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI MEMBER





PRESENT: Sh.Aalok Jagga, Complainant No.2 in person.

Sh.Sandeep Suri, Adv. for OPs.

---



PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT

Sh.Ashok Paul Jagga and Sh.Aalok Jagga have filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein that OP be directed to :-

i) Refund Rs.47,320/- towards illegal foreclosure charges/prepayment penalty.

ii) Refund Rs.36,600/- charged by OPs as installment for the month of October, 2008 despite the fact that the loan was cleared on 04.10.2008 along with interest 18% p.a. till date of payment.

iii) Pay Rs.80,000/- incurred towards availing the loan of Rs.12.5 lacs from J & K Bank Ltd. along with interest 18% p.a. till date of payment.

iv) Pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental as well as physical harassment etc.

v) Pay Rs.15000/- as costs of litigation.

2. In brief, the case of the complainants is that they availed the credit facility by way of loan in the month of March, 2006 for an amount of Rs.28 lacs for purchasing a new House No.2374, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh by mortgaging title deed of the house in question with the OP-Bank. The complainants approached OP-Bank in May, 2006 for clearing the entire loan but the Bank informed them that in case of pre-payment within 6 months from the date of disbursement, penalty @ 2% would be charged. According to the complainants, they had paid the monthly installments of Rs.36,600/- approximately throughout the period of 3 years without any default. The complainants decided to sell the house in question to Sh.Jai Inder pal Singh to meet their financial needs and therefore, they approached the Bank for prepayment of the loan amount. As per the calculation chart, the complainants were required to pay as :-

Principal outstanding : Rs.13,45,178.32

Interest for the month : Rs.3,59,282.68

Foreclosure charges @ 1.69% : Rs.47,320/-

at outstanding principal

Overdue installments : Rs.0

Rebate (-) : Rs.3,46,204.56Ps

----------------

Total Payable : : Rs.14,05,576.44/-.

----------------



According to the complainants, the penalty @ 1.69% on the principal amount of Rs.13,45,178.32 P comes to Rs.22,733/- instead of Rs.47,320/- which itself shows deficiency in service on the part OPs. The complainant requested several times to OPs for rectification of the statement of accounts but to no effect. The OPs informed the complainants that the date of calculation of the total amount due i.e. Rs.14,05,576.44 was as on 03.10.2008 and in case the payment was received after this date, an additional interest of Rs.467.08 would be charged for every day. According to the complainants, they have paid Rs.14,07,444/- on 04.10.2008 vide cheque No.667020 drawn on Karnataka Bank and this amount included Rs.14,05,776/- and Rs.1868/- (467.08x4 days i.e. the date of realization of the cheque). In this way, OPs had charged the interest for the next four days also i.e. till 08.10.2008. After clearing the loan account, OPs failed to deliver the title deeds of the house in question to the complainants which they had to deliver to the purchaser for getting the property transferred in his name i.e. by 06.10.2008. Consequently, the complainants had to avail another loan from Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd., Sector 21, Panchkula for remitting the funds to the seller of the Zirakpur property to an extent of Rs.12.5 lacs on 06.10.2008 for purchasing the said house. According to the complainants, the title deeds of the house in question were handed over to them on 11.11.2008 despite the fact that the loan had been cleared on 04.10.2008. In these circumstances, the present complaint was filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above.

3. In the reply filed by OPs, the factum of availing the loan of Rs.28 lacs by the complainants for the purchase of the house in question has been admitted. It has been denied that the complainant has been wrongly charged the foreclosure charges @ 1.69% and that there is a mathematical mistake in the calculation of the foreclosure charges as mentioned in Annexure C-2. It has been pleaded that as per the loan agreement, in case of closure of the loan prior to the agreed tenure, the complainants would liable to pay an amount equivalent to 1.5% (for closure within 5 years) of the total loan availed from the bank plus such statutory levies and taxes at the time of closure of the loan; that said foreclosure/pre-payment was 1.5% of the total loan and the component 0.19% is statutory taxes and levies as applicable; that the complainant has been rightly charged an amount of Rs.47,320/- being 1.69% of the total loan amount of Rs.28 lacs; that it has been inadvertently mentioned in Annexure C-2 that the amount is payable on the outstanding principal instead of original loan amount though the calculation has been made as per the original loan amount; that the loan with the OP bank had not been taken over by the J & K Bank; that the Bank is not responsible for sale of the property or for the purchase of the subsequent property; that the cheques in respect of the EMIs payable to the Bank are presented centrally and are dispatched in the manner so that the same are presented for clearing on the due dates (5th in the present case); that the amount of the installment so received by Bank for the month of October, 2008 has been duly refunded to the complainant and the bank had also offered the payment of interest on the same to the complainant; that on encashment of the cheque towards closure of the loan, after due sanctions, the necessary request is raised with the agency in whose safe custody the documents are maintained and the same are then retrieved and sent to the concerned office for the purposes of further transmission of the same to the loanee and for that purpose 30-40 days are required. All other averments made in the complaint are denied. In these circumstances, according to OPs, there is no deficiency in service on its part and the complaint deserves dismissal.

4. We have heard the complainant in person and learned counsel for the OPs and have gone through the entire record including documents, Annexures, affidavits etc.

5. The first argument advanced by the complainants is that vide letter dated 03.10.2008 (Annexure C-2), OPs had demanded the foreclosure/pre-payment charges @ 1.69% on the outstanding principal amount whereas in fact they have charged a sum of Rs.47,320/- on the total loan amount. This act of the OPs, according to the complainants, amounts to deficiency in service and they are entitled to the return of the sum of Rs.24,587/- (Rs.47320- Rs.22733/-) being paid in excess as foreclosure/pre-payment charges. On the other hand, it was argued by the learned counsel for OPs that as per the terms and conditions of the loan agreement as contained in clause No.2.9 & Schedule 7, the complainants are liable to pay the foreclosure/pre-payment charges @ 1.69% on the total original loan amount and not on the outstanding principal amount on the date of its payment. We have gone through both the documents. It is correct that in the loan agreement, it has been mentioned that the complainants shall be liable to pay the foreclosure/pre-payment charges @ 1.69% on the total original loan amount. However, in letter (Annexure C-2) issued subsequent to the loan agreement, it has been mentioned that the foreclosure/pre-payment charges are payable only on the outstanding loan amount. By this letter (Annexure C-2), the clause No.2.9 & Schedule 7 of the loan agreement in question stands amended to the extent mentioned in the letter (Annexure C-2). So the complainants are liable to pay the foreclosure/pre-payment charges @ 1.69% only on the outstanding principal amount of Rs.13,45,178.32. Thus, a sum of Rs.24,587/- has been charged in excess from the complainants as foreclosure/prepayment charges and the complainants are entitled to the return of this amount.

6. Admittedly, the OPs had deducted a sum of Rs.36,600/- towards the installment for the month of October, 2008 despite the fact that the complainants had already paid the entire outstanding loan amount by that time. The said amount is stated to have been refunded later by the OPs. However, the complainants are entitled to an interest @ 12.5% on the amount of Rs.36,600/- from the date of its deduction till the date of its payment.

7. The next argument advanced by the complainants is that despite the fact that the entire loan amount was repaid on 04.10.2008, the title deeds of the mortgaged house were returned on 11.11.2008 i.e. after 37 days. To our mind, in view of the provisions of Transfer of Property Act, OPs were liable to return title deeds of the house in question immediately after payment of the entire loan amount. Admittedly, OPs took 37 days for return of the title deeds of the house in question which amounts to deficiency in service on their part. So the complainants are entitled to sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment on account of the said deficiency in service. In addition to this, the complainants are also entitled to a sum of Rs.5000/- as costs of litigation.

8. In view of the above findings, this complaint is allowed with a direction to OPs to refund the sum of Rs.24,587/- having been charged in excess towards foreclosure/pre-payment charges @ 1.69% on the original loan amount and to pay the interest @ 12.5 % p.a. on the amount of Rs.36,600/- from the date of its deduction till its payment to the complainants. The OPs are directed to pay to the complainants a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to the complainants and deficiency in service. In addition to this, the OPs are also directed to pay to the complainants a sum of Rs.5000/- as costs of litigation.

9. This order be complied with by the OPs within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the OPs shall be liable to refund the amount of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant along with penal interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of order till its realization besides costs of litigation.

10. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.
Announced

29.12.2009.

Subject
HDFC UNIT LINKED YOUNG STAR PLUS' (sarUtha ke jiyo)
Reality what you get after 25 year for kids education

HDFC UNIT LINKED YOUNG STAR PLUS' (sarUtha ke jiyo)
I had taken a policy of 'HDFC UNIT LINKED YOUNG STAR PLUS' (sarUtha ke jiyo)
With insurance coverage giving me so many dreams shown in excel sheet HDFC promise kid’s education and soooooo and dream are as follow
hdfcinsurance.com/Products/Downloads/ChildresPlan_PDF.pdf
hdfcbank.com/personal/investments/life_insurance/unit_linked_plans/young_star_plus/unit_youngstar_plus.htm#
hdfcinsurance.com/Products/ChildrensPlans/YoungstarSuper.aspx

Reality is this

It involved initial amount of Rs 5 lakhs investment, in the yr 2005, followed by payments of Rs. 50,000 for 3 consecutive years. This was terms and condition agreed at the time of investment with HDFC staff that came home (jiteesh, Biju insurance person).Pathanamthitta Branch
I paid all these payments in till 2009. In 2010 January, I got a cheque of approx Rs. 4 lakhs from HDFC bank, saying that all is closed.

For verification Policy # is 10785159

You can clearly see that I have lost around Rs. 2.5 lakhs at the end of 4-5 yrs. It would have been a better choice to put it in fixed deposit else where which would have given me double the amount by now.
SO THINK YOUR SELF WHAT FUTURE THEY ARE GIVING FORYOUR KIDS EDUCATION/MARRAIGE.................................

Respected Sir

Myself sawant *Chandra I am A/C holder of HDFC BANK (A/C
NO.=01861050061121*)I would like to complain against hdfc bank Gaya
branch,Matter is that On the *month of 3 August 2009* I was reached *HDFC
ATM (A.P Colony,Gaya-823001)* ,for transaction of amt. Rs 1000/-,when I
insert my card ,and given Password ,Due *to machine problem sametime Rs
1000/- was not withdrwal and my amount was deducted on slip*, that time I
inform guard he was also witness ,he suggest me to write complain in his
register book. Which I did.

Nextday on 4 th Aug 2009 I was visited *HDFC
main branch Chowk ,GAYA*. Were I was given Written application also inform
them that time bank employee they assure them that your transaction will
back within week ,but it didn’t happened ,two to three times again they told
to write application which already I did *several time I contact them they
are telling it is in process ,3 Months crossed Till today ,amount was not
credited in my account.*
I request you to Plz……….take action
towards this activity

Thanks

With Rgd………….

*Sawant Chandra*

*Nutan nagar,Kalibari *

*New colony,*

*Gaya-823001*

*(Bihar)*

*Mobile**:09934752796*

I have had the most terrible time being the customer of HDFC and I don't
only feel but i know that this is the biggest mistake and you have ended up
on doing fraud at me i use a credit card and very unfortunate was the day
when i recieved a call that i will get cah on call i agrred to it and they
send me a draft believe it or not draft did not reach to me by 1.5 months by
the time your emi date was due i was afraid that if i dont pay your emi on
time you will charge me extra which you always do so i paid your 1st emi
without getting that draft some days after that i recieve your draft but it
got rejected by icici bank when i report this to you and ask your exectutive
to please cancel that draft and credit the money directly into my hdfc bank
account which he agrees and now i called back today they say they have
cancelled that loan aswell for which you have already taken a payment from
me and this is illegal i've already paid for that and now you are
restricting me from a service for which i already paid and you are not even
giving my money back and guess what your ecxecutives say that go legal as
if they don't care because i am on the recieving end from you for last 3
months

regards
azhar rather
9560209740