Thread: Hdfc bank

Hello,

Kindly post your complaint in detailed manner with your permanent address and a valid email ID, this will help us to understand the exact problem you are facing.

COMPLAINT NO.2005 OF 2009

Lakshminarayana. R

S/o D.Ramakrishnaiah,

Aged about 40 yrs,

R.No.38, “Lakshmi Krupa”

3rd Main, 5th Cross,

Chikkakatsandra,

Sarvabhouma Nagar,

Bangalore – 61.

…. Complainant.

V/s



01. HDFC Banks Card Division,

PO Box No:8654,

Thiuvanmiyur P.O.,

Chennai – 600 041.



02. Primus Retail Pvt. Ltd.,

No:273, 100 Feet Ring road,

Banashankari 3rd Stage,

3rd Phase, 5th Block, Bangalore -85.



03. G.R.Colors, NO:3, North Anjaneya

Temple Street, Gandhi Bazar,

Basavanagudi, Bangalore – 04.



04. Sri.Madhushala,

Sri Sai Mansion, No:276,

Banashankari, 1st Stage,

Srinivasa Nagar,

Bangalore – 50.

…. Opposite Parties



-: ORDER:-



This complaint is filed claiming the following reliefs:-

* Allow the complaint,
* Declare the acts on the part of the Opposite Parties as unfair trade practice to meet the ends of justice,
* Declare that the claim of Rs.48,675.30/- as claimed by the Opposite Party No.1 amounted to unfair trade practice.
* Direct the Opposite Parties to pay compensation to an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- for the mental agony suffered by the complainant because of the negligent acts on the part of the Opposite Parties to meet the ends of justice.
* Direct to pay the costs of this litigation,
* And to pass such other order or direction as deems fit under the circumstances of the case to meet the ends of justice.



2. The case of the complainant is as under:-

He holds the credit card bearing No.5176 5210 0503 of Opposite Party No.1 Bank. On 24/04/2006 he lost the credit card and noticed the same only on 29/04/2009. Immediately he called the customer care of Opposite Party No.1 and got the card blocked. But he found that several transactions had taken place illegally by making use of lost card. Therefore he submitted charge dispute form to Opposite Party No.1 and disputed the transactions. Immediately after getting knowledge of the illegal transactions, he made a complaint to hold detail enquiry about those transactions and gave particulars of those transactions. Thereupon Opposite Party No.1 furnished copies of the receipts with regard to those transactions. From those receipts, the complainant made out that the lost card has been used for transactions to the extent of Rs.32,512/- with Opposite Party No.2, Rs.11,500/- with Opposite Party No.3 and Rs.3,090/- with Opposite Party No.4. On perusal of the receipts, he made out that Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 4 have permitted those transactions with gross negligence and without verification of the signature on the credit card. He also lodged a complaint with police requesting to nab the culprit. Opposite Party No.1 is demanding Rs.48,675-30 paise towards those transactions made by using the lost card. Those transactions being illegal, Opposite Party No.1 cannot insist upon the complainant to make payment in respect of those transactions. On 10/06/2009 a representative of Opposite Party No.1 claiming to be a recovery agent visited the residence of the complainant at about 8.30 p.m. and demanded the credit card dues. On narrating the above complaint, the recovery agent left the place instructing him to get ready with entire dues by the next week. He also issued legal notice calling upon Opposite Party No.1 to desist from demanding the amount towards illegal transactions, but it went in vain. Hence, the complaint.

3. In spite of service of notice, Opposite Party Nos. 3 & 4 have remained absent. The contention of Opposite Party No.1 – the HDFC Bank is as under:-

Opposite Party No.1 had issued the credit card in question to the complainant with credit limit of Rs.46,000/- and on receipt of information regarding the loss of the said credit card, a new credit card has been issued to the complainant blocking the earlier card w.e.f. 29/04/2009. The new card is also suspended permanently due to non payment of the amount due. The earlier card was utilized by the complainant till 25/04/2009 and it was reported on 29/04/2009 that the said card is lost and therefore the card was blocked w.e.f. 29/04/2009. The complainant lodged police complaint on 16/05/2009 with regard to the loss of the credit card. The complaint filed charge dispute form on 25/04/2009 disputing six transactions that had taken place on 25/04/2009 for a total sum of Rs.47,102/-. Due diligence in keeping and safe handling of the credit card is required to be ensured by the card holder. Under card member agreement it is provided that the Bank is not liable or responsible for any transactions incurred on the card account prior to time of reporting the loss of the card and the card member is wholly liable for the same. It is also provided in the agreement that the card member will be liable for all transactions if the card loss is not reported immediately and the FIR is not filed within three days of loss/theft of the card. The agreement also provides that the card member indemnifies the Bank fully against any liability that may arise due to loss or misuse of the card in the event the loss is not reported to the Bank. All the disputed transactions in a total sum of Rs.47,102/- had taken place on 25/04/2009 whereas report regarding the loss of the card was given on 29/04/2009. If really the complainant lost the credit card on 25/04/2009, he should have reported the same to customer care of the Opposite Party immediately and got the card blocked. That having not been done, it is clear that the complainant himself had utilized the card as per his whims and fancies and has now come up with a version that he lost the credit card. Therefore, the complainant himself is liable to pay the utilized amount by making use of the credit card. On these grounds, Opposite Party No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4. The contention of Opposite Party No.2 – Primus Retail Pvt. Ltd., is as under:-

Against the allegations in Para-5 of the complaint, they verified the transactions made through the credit card in question on 25/04/2009 and the following are the details of the transactions.

Time of Sale Sale Vale

19:08:51 14,850/-

19:00:27 5,333/-

18:52:20 12,329/-



Their policy is that without cross verification of the signature, they will not hand over the sold items. If any conspiracy or ambiguity is felt, they will not allow the buyer to leave till it is proved that the buyer and cardholder is one and the same. They also made domestic enquiry with the past and present employees and understood from the then store manager Mr.Nagaraj that there were no suspicious acts observed at the time of the transactions and the transactions made at rush hours on a weekend cannot be remembered unless there could be ambiguous event that happens. Therefore, the allegations in Para-5 of the complaint are denied. There was no negligence on the part of Opposite Party No.2 and therefore not entitled to pay compensation as claimed.

5. In support of the respective contentions both parties have filed affidavits and have produced copies of documents. We have heard the arguments of both side.

6. The points for consideration are:-



1. Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties?

2. Whether the complainant entitled to the relief prayed for in the complaint?

7. Our finding to the above points is in the NEGATIVE for the following:-

-:REASONS:-

8. At the out set we may point out that under Section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, no declaratory reliefs can be granted as prayed for by the complainant. A consumer raising consumer dispute is entitled for compensation if he proves deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled to the declaratory reliefs as claimed in the complaint. He is entitled to compensation in case he proves deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties.



9. It is not in dispute that Opposite Party No.1 had issued the credit card mentioned in the complaint to the complainant. It is the contention of the complainant that he lost credit card on 24/04/2009 but he noticed that fact only on 29/04/2009 and immediately reported the same to the customer care of Opposite Party No.1. The fact that the complainant reported the loss of credit card on 29/04/2009 is admitted by Opposite Party No.1 who have also contended that only w.e.f. 29/04/2009 the card was blocked. The contention of the complainant makes it clear that for about five days the loss of the card did not come to the notice of the complainant. Before he reported the loss of the card to the Bank on 29/04/2009, five transactions in a total sum of Rs.47,102/- had taken place. As per the card member agreement mentioned in the version by Opposite Party No.1, the holder of the card himself is responsible for the transactions that take place between the time of loss of the card and the time at which the loss is reported to the concerned Bank. Therefore, since the transactions took place before the complainant reported to Opposite Party No.1 about the loss of the card on 29/04/2009, the complainant himself becomes liable for those transactions.

10. We are unable to uphold the contention of the complainant that the disputed transactions were allowed without verifying the signature on the credit card. To hold that the signature on the transactions slip are not similar to the signature of the complainant on the credit card, the credit card is not before us. As such we are unable to make out that the signature on the transactions slip are not the signatures of the complainant as found in the credit card. In the version Opposite Party No.2 has contended that only after verification of the signature on the credit card and on the transaction slip, they permit the transactions. In these circumstances, no fault could be found with the Opposite Party in permitting the transactions in question. Therefore we are unable to make out any deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties and as such hold that the complainant is not entitled to any compensation as claimed. In the result, we pass the following:-

-:ORDER:-

1. The complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.
2. Send a copy of this order to both parties free of costs, immediately.
3. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 22nd Day of DECEMBER 2009.

Complainant:
Mr. S. Jagannathan

Aged about 76 years

S/o. S.V.R Chari

No.206, Classique Mansion

46, 6th Cross, 19th Main

HAL II Stage

Bangalore-560 008
V/s

Opposite Party:
1. H.D.F.C. Bank Ltd.,

Registered Office at

Kamala Mills Compound

Trade World, 1st Floor

A Wing, Lower Parel

Mumbai-400 059


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

8/24, Salco Centre

Richmond Road

Bangalore-560 025


O R D E R

SRI.D. KRISHNAPPA, PRESIDENT:



The grievance of the complainant against the Ops in brief is, that himself and his wife namely S. Padmini were the joint holder of savings bank account with the Op for the last 6 years. The complainant further giving the account numbers has stated that current account number was attached to FAS account No.31887. Through that FAS scheme he availed loan from the Ops against security facility. That he was not given a copy of the agreement despite request. That he was always endeavored to maintain the account straight and clear. During October 2008 while he was scanning his Demat account he found three of his stocks were missing. That on 02/11/2008 he was shocked to see an entry in his current account showing a pledged security for Rs.24,271/-. On 31/10/2008 he did not get specific answer to that he has not consented for the sale of securities by the Op but saw in the statement of current account his securities for Rs.24,271/- were sold. Being aggrieved by that act he contacted that Op No.2 who confirmed him in having sold securities. Then he addressed a letter to Ops on 04/11/2008 regarding sale of security and demanding for explanation. The Op has sent an untenable reply to him stating that the account was not regularized and therefore they proceeded for sale of security. That despite protesting against the sale of his stocks and mutual funds the Ops without informing him and without affording an opportunity have sold security, which is against the conditions of the agreement and several letters. That the complainant further stated that the Ops have caused deficiency in their service has prayed for Rs.10,000/- towards expenditure he incurred on the transactions with the OP, Rs.5.00 lakhs as damages for his mental agony and miscellaneous expenditure of Rs.20,000/-.

Ops have appeared through their counsel and filed version stating that they have not caused any deficiency in their service by sale of securities pledged with them by the complainant and they have done in exercise of banker’s lien for default committed by the complainant. The Ops further admitted to had sanctioned loan of Rs.20.00 lakhs on 21/01/2004 jointly and that the complainant had pledged his shares as collateral security. It is further stated by him as per condition number 2 of the loan agreement when the value of the securities pledged by the borrower fall short the borrower shall within 7 days of notice, deposited additional security in the form of shares or cash, failing which they have all discretion to sell and dispose off. It is further stated by them, as on 23/09/2008 a sum of Rs.2,32,498/- was outstanding in the loan account of the complainant and due to fall in price of the shares the value of the security pledged by the complainant was not sufficient to cover the dues to the extent of Rs.29,497/- then they called upon the complainant to make good deficit amount and that the complainant since did not responded, was again called upon to pay Rs.24,297/- and the complainant himself did not make that loss good they have sold the shares and therefore have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.



In the course of enquiry into the complaint, complainant and one Manjunath for Ops have filed their affidavit evidence reproducing the material facts they have canvassed. The complainant along with complaint has produced a copy of bank statement of current account for having sold his security for Rs.27,271/-, copy of the letter he had addressed to Op on 04/11/2008 and reply of the Op dated 05/11/2008 and copies of some other letters that were exchanged. Ops have only produced copy of loan agreement-cum-loan guarantee. Heard the counsel for both the parties and perused the records.



On consideration of the above materials following points for determination arise.



1. Whether the Ops prove that prior to sale of securities furnished by the complainant they had issued notice to the complainant for making good deficit in the security and when the complainant failed to do so they sold securities?

2. To what relief the complainant is entitled to?

Point No.1 : In the affirmative.

Point No.2: To see the final order.



REASONS:



Answer on point No.1 : As there is no dispute between the complainant and the Ops regarding this complainant having had account with Ops, availment of loan and repayment, we straight away go to the points which are in dispute between them.

It is the complaint of the complainant that he after availment of loan, he was promptly repaying loan and during October 2008 while he was looking at Demat account maintained with the Ops he saw that three of his stocks were missing. It is his further case that when he contacted the Ops they confirmed to had sold securities for Rs.24,271/- on 31/10/2008. Ops as against this have contended that they had addressed letters to the complainant and telephonically informed by affording an opportunity to the complainant to make good the security, when the complainant did not respond to them claimed to have sold security of the complainant and recouped Rs.24,271/-. Ops in Para 3 of version and also in the midst of the affidavit evidence have stated that whenever the value of the securities pledged by borrower falls short and is deficient then the borrower shall within 7 days of notice to deposit additional security in the form of share or cash, failing which they have discretion to sell the shares to make good the deficit.



Ops themselves have produced a copy of loan agreement cum guarantee, condition No.2 of the loan agreement relied upon by the Op reads “if at any time, the value of the said securities falls so as to create the deficiency in the margin requirement specified by the bank from time to time or if there is an excess in the over draft facility limit, the borrower shall within 7 days of notice from the bank, deposit with the bank additional security in the form of cash or such other securities which may be acceptable by the bank and thereafter it provides discretion to the banker to sell security. It is clear from the stand of the Ops and condition No.2 of the loan agreement that whenever the Ops found that security furnished by the complainant is inadequate. The bank is required to intimate the borrower with an intention of providing them opportunity to furnish additional security. But the case on hand the Opponents though claim to have intimated the complainant through several modes but have not produced a scrap of paper in having had intimated the complainant at least from one of the means to give additional security. On the contrary, the complainant proved to had addressed a letter to the second Op in they having sold shares without intimation to him. OP in his letter dated 05/11/2008 though stated to had intimated the complainant for updating the security but have not produced anything to prove the issue of notice at any stage. A reply was given by the complainant on 10/11/2008 denying the allegations of the Ops that they had intimated him and called upon the Ops to furnish any documents of proof to prove the intimation that they had given to the complainant. Even thereafter we find some letters exchanged between the parties. But the Ops have not produced any proof or reliable statement, in they having had intimated the complainant. On perusal of the contention of the parties, exchange of letters, we are not finding any material to prove that the Ops had intimated the complainant before sale of securities. In this connection, the complainant has very critically challenged the opponents to substantiate the opportunity given to the complainant give additional security. Hence, we hold that the Ops have failed to prove that they had informed the complainant as warranted under the condition of loan agreement prior to the sale of securities. Under these circumstances and on the basis of materials placed before us, we hold that the Ops have acted arbitrarily and prejudices manner and caused financial inconvenience, hardship and mental agony.

Ops if they had given an opportunity to the complainant to make good the security he could have arrange to do so and avoid sale this shares. But the opponents have sold the securities of the complainant for Rs.24,271/- by violated the terms of agreement are liable to pay damages to the complainant with punitive damages. With the result, we answer point No.1 in affirmative and pass the following order.


O R D E R

Complaint is allowed. Ops are jointly and severally held to have caused deficiency in their service and have indulged in such unfair trade practice and therefore are directed to pay damages of Rs.20,000/- and Rs.5,000/- towards punitive damages.

Ops shall also pay these two damages within 60 days from the date of this order, failing which they shall pay interest @ 8% p.a from the date of this order till payment.

Ops shall also pay cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant.

consumer case(CC) No. CC/08/230

Sukhamay J. Bhattacharya
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

HDFC Bank and 2 others
...........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. 230 / 2008



1) Sri Sukhamay Bhattacharya,

15/6, Purbachal Main Road,

Kolkata-700078. ---------- Complainant

---Verses---

1) HDFC Bank,

96, Anna Salai, Chennai-600002.



2) The Manager, HDFC Bank,

Vashi Branch, Navi Mumbai-400705.



3) HDFC Bank,

132A, Golpark, M.S. Sarani,

Kolkata-700029. ---------- Opposite Party

Present : Sri S. K. Majumdar, President.

Sri T.K. Bhattachatya, Member

Order No. 1 4 Dated 1 5 / 0 1 / 2 0 1 0 .

The instant case arising out of the complaint of Sri Sukhamay Bhattacharya filed on 15/07/2008 against HDFC Bank and two others for unfair trade practice about the credit card to the effect that the complainant being assured by the o.p. no.1 of prompt and accurate service against payment of service charges, accepted the credit card bearing no.4346/7710/0006/4551 offered by the o.p. no.1. The petitioner very seldom used the above mentioned credit card, but all along paid the dues within the time limit for using the said credit card. The petitioner states that in the year 2004 the petitioner was offered a loan of Rs.88,000/- only by the o.p. no.1 with the option of repayment of the same by easy instalments. The petitioner states that the repayment of the said loan was duly made by the petitioner much prior to the agreed period.

The petitioner states that the account of the said credit card as well as the loan as aforesaid was settled and all the outstanding thereof was paid up by the petitioner to the o.ps. (annex-A of affidavit of evidence of this complainant bearing statement dt.7.6.05).
The complainant has his savings account with other members of his family with the o.p. no.2 being A/C no.05401500003936.
The o.p. no.1 by writing a letter dated 31/01/2008 to the petitioner demanded a sum of Rs.11,607.04 only in order to exact money illegally and arbitrarily from the complainant. In the said letter it was threatened to adjust the aforesaid amount from his aforesaid saving account maintained with the o.p. no.2 to which the petitioner objected.
The petitioner on 22.2.08 went to the ATM of the o.ps. at 132A, Golpark, Meghnath Saha Sarani, Kolkata-29 to withdraw money, but to his utter surprise he found that the balance in his account was nil, (annex-A).

The petitioner on contacting the o.ps. came to know that a sum of Rs.5067.11 only which was lying in the aforesaid S.B. A/C of the complainant was adjusted against the alleged dues in the credit card loan account of the complainant without prior knowledge of the complainant.

The complainant thereafter asked the o.ps. several times including advocate’s letter dt.7.3.08 to regularize his S.B. A/C by refunding the said amount of Rs.5067.11 only but without any response, (annex-B).

The complainant further states that had there been any dues in the said loan account, the o.ps. would have served the demand notice after 2005 and / or initiate legal proceedings against the complainant. But the o.ps. did nothing to show that there was any outstanding dues of the complainant as alleged.

The complainant reiterates again that if it is assumed that there was outstanding dues, but that could not be adjusted from the S.B. A/C of the complainant maintained with o.ps. without his consent.

Hence, the complainant has lodged this case in the Consumer Forum u/s 12 of C.P. Act, 1986 against the o.ps. for their highhanded act and deficiency in service.

Decision with reasons:

Perused the petition of complaint, affidavit of evidence and BNA of the complainant and documents on record. From the records, it is evident that in spite of commitments given by the o.ps, no w/v was filed. As such, order was passed for ex parte hearing vide order no.7 dt.5.3.09.

It is an admitted fact that the complainant accepted the HDFC Bank Credit Card bearing no.4346771000064551 on the assurance of o.p. no.1 of good, prompt and accurate service in respect of the said credit card.

It is also an admitted fact that the complainant accepted a loan of Rs.88,000/- offered by the o.p. no.1 with option of repayment of the same by easy monthly instalments.

The complainant made the repayment of the said loan much prior to the agreed period including the credit card account (annex-A - statement dt.7.6.05 attached with A/E of complainant).

But on 27.5.05 the complainants’ letter enclosing a chqeue no.134563 drawn on Abhundaya Bank Ltd. Nerul Branch for Rs.72,000/- against hois premature balance loan amount which was cleared on 2.6.05 but kept on suspense account without adjusting against loan amount by the o.ps. and the o.ps. were keeping on sending statements of accounts of EMI due to the o.ps. every month after 7.6.05 for reasons best known to them (annex-B of the petition of complaint).

On 27.6.05 the complainant sent another letter enclosing cheque no.245380 dt.27.6.05 for Rs.743.51 only being balance after adding premature charges which was cleared on 1.7.05 (annex-B of the petition of complaint).

On 23.7.05 the complainant’s registered letter for cancellation of the said credit card along with request for sending “Nil Loan Balance Certificate” went unheeded by the o.ps. and the o.ps. used to send outstanding balance statement including EMI, late fee charges and interest thereon though all the outstanding dues were paid up by the complainant earlier (annex-A-statement dt. 7.6.05 enclosed in A/E of complainant and annex-B of the petition of complaint).

This apart, it is worth mentioning that if it is assumed that there has been outstanding dues of the complainant, the o.ps. must have sent the bill raising the outstanding dues which the complainant would have to pay immediately after 7.6.05, but which was not done.


It was only in the year 1908, the o.p. sent a letter dt.31.1.08 addressed to the complainant intimating that (1) credit card balance as on date : Rs.11,607.04, (ii) Extent of ‘Hold on Funds’ : Rs.5067.11 and (iii) Hold on Funds placed on : 31.1.08 (annex-B of petition of complaint).

In view of the situation cropped up, it appears that the letter dt.31.1.08 of the o.p. after a lapse of more than two years is nothing but an attempt to cover up their (o.p’s) unfair trade practices.

Moreover, it is quite unethical on the part of the bank to extract money amounting to Rs.5067.11 only from the joint account of the complainant to adjust the said amount against the alleged dues of complainant in respect of his credit card without his knowledge and consent.

Moreover, the o.ps. have waived their rights by themselves by way of non-submission of w/v in spite of several assurances given by the o.ps. to submit the same, which indicates that they have nothing in their palms to controvert the allegations made in the petition of complaint by the complainant.

Thus, the complainant succeeds the instant case by his oral submission as well as pleadings, affidavit of evidence and documents on records.

Hence, ordered,


that the o.ps. are directed severally or jointly (i) to refund Rs.5067.11 (Rupees five thousand sixty seven and eleven paise) only in favour of the complainant in his joint account bearing no.05401500003936 along with prevailing bank interest with effect from 31.1.08 till date of refunding of the said money within thirty days from the date of communication of this order , (ii) to pay compensation amounting to Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) only for mental agonies and harassment and unfair trade practices within thirty days from the days of communication of this order and (iii) to pay litigation cost of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand) only within thirty days from the date of communication of this order. In default, the aforesaid amounts will carry an interest @ 10% p.a. till the recovery of the said amounts in full.

Fees paid are correct.
The case is thus disposed of from this forum.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties on receipt of prescribed fees.

100.
NO. 329/10.9.2009
Decided on: 8.1.2010
Babloo & Company, Gaushala Bazar, Hoshiarpur, through its Sole Proprietor, Babloo Gupta son of Shri Janak Raj Gupta.
......... Complainant
versus

HDFC Bank, Sutehari Road, Hoshiarpur, through its Branch Manager.

........... Opposite Party

Complaint u/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.


Quorum: Sh. P.D. Goel, President,

Sh. A.S. Jauhar, Member,

Mrs. Vandna Chowdhary, Member.


Present: Sh. C.S. Marwaha, counsel for the complainant.

Sh. Y.P. Piplani, counsel for the opposite party.


PER P.D. GOEL, PRESIDENT:
1.
The complainant namely Babloo & Company has filed the present complaint through its Sole Proprietor, under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date ) “hereinafter referred as the Act”. Stated briefly, the facts of the case the complainant is the holder of Current Account No. 115602000001820 with the opposite party. It is the case of the complainant that he initially opened an account with Bank of Punjab, Sutehari Road, Hoshiarpur. The said bank merged with Centurion Bank of Punjab and thereafter, Centurion Bank of Punjab merged with HDFC Bank – opposite party.
2.
It is the allegation of the complainant that the opposite party is charging cash deposit charges from him without notice or consent. The complainant made a request to the opposite party not to charge the cash deposit charges, but of no consequences. It is further the case of the complainant that since 2nd January, 2008 to 24th June, 2009, the opposite party had withdrawn Rs. 1,35,695/- from his account without his consent. The said act of the opposite party is stated to be illegal and arbitrary, hence this complaint.
3.
The defence of the opposite party was struck off by order of this Court on 6.1.2010.
4.
In order to prove the case, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of Babloo Gupta – Ex. C-1, letter dated 16.3.2009 – Mark C-2, letter dated nil – Mark C-3, statement of account – Mark C-4 (pages 1 to 23) and closed the evidence.

5.
We have gone through the record of the file minutely.
6.
Admittedly, the defenece of the opposite party was struck off by order of this Court on 6.1.2010. The complainant has alleged that he is the holder of Current Account No. 115602000001820 with the opposite party. It is the grouse of the complainant that the opposite party charged cash deposit charges from him without notice or consent. The request of the complainant not to charge the cash deposit charges was declined by the opposite party. The said averment contained in the complaint has been supported by the affidavit of the complainant – Ex. C-1, which goes unrebutted.
7.

The complainant to prove that the opposite party has charged cash deposit charges illegally from him without notice or consent has produced on record the Statement of Account – Mark C-4 and its careful scrutiny makes it clear that the opposite party has charged cash deposit charges of Rs. 1,371/-, Rs. 2,445/-, Rs. 6,995/-, Rs. 9,410/-, Rs. 8,241/-, Rs. 7,034/-, Rs. 6,792/-, Rs. 5,063/-, Rs. 5,037/-, Rs. 7,426/-, Rs. 5,845/-, Rs. 5,557/-, Rs. 9,240/-, Rs. 7,711/-, Rs. 9,158/-, Rs. 625.30, Rs. 6,253/-, Rs. 18.76, Rs. 625.30, Rs. 6,253/-, Rs. 427.96, Rs. 355.17, Rs. 548.41, Rs. 964.02, Rs.7,148/-, Rs. 714.80, Rs. 21.44, Rs. 302.22, Rs. 467.68, Rs. 413.63, Rs. 825.04, Rs. 534.96, and Rs. 154.42 from the complainant.
8.

Now, it is established on record that the opposite party had deducted Rs. 1,23,978.11 in toto qua Mark C-4 towards cash deposit charges without notice or consent of the complainant. The perusal of the order dated 18.12.2009 reveals that the learned counsel for the complainant had placed on record the letter dated 16.12.2009 issued by the opposite party qua which the opposite party had agreed to reverse charges to the tune of Rs. 1.00 lac.
9.

The opposite party came present but did not care to contest the claim of the complainant, as such, it can be concluded without any hesitation that either the opposite party admits the claim of the complainant or has nothing to say in the matter. Moreso, the evidence led by the complainant goes unrebutted.
10.

Since the opposite party had illegally deducted Rs. 1,23,978.11 qua Mark C-4 towards cash deposit charges without notice or consent of the complainant, therefore, it amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Consequently, the complaint of the complainant is accepted and the opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 1,23,978.11 to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 10.9.2009. Litigation expenses are assessed at Rs. 1,000/- to be paid by the opposite party to the complainant. Compliance of the order be made within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room.

C.C.NO. 42 Of 2009
Between:-
Syed Shafiuddin S/o Syed Saiffuddin, age: 30 years, Occ: Business, R/o H.No.1-1-76/E, Mothinagar, Mahabubnagar.
… Complainant
And

1. The Branch Manager, HDFC Bank Ltd., Mettugadda, Mahabubnagar.

2. The Branch Manager, HDFC Bank Ltd., 4th Flore, Lala-1, Landmark,

5-4-941, M.G. Road, Ranigunj, Secunderabad.

… Opposite Parties
This C.C. coming on before us for final hearing on 22-01-2010 in the presence of Sri P. Amba Shankar, Advocate, Mahabubnagar for the complainant and the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 having been set exparte and having stoodover for consideration till this day, this Forum delivered the following:

O R D E R

(Sri P. Venkateshwar Rao, Member)

1. This is a complaint filed U/s 12 of C.P. Act, 1986 by the complainant praying this Forum to direct the OPs to return the Toyota Innova Car to the complainant and receive the loan installments or in the alternative if return of vehicle is not possible pay the sum of Rs.7,40,620/- with interest from the date of invested by the complainant to purchase vehicle along with documents and also to pay Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant towards mental agony and also pay costs of the complaint.

2. The complaint averments are as follows:- The complainant has availed loan for purchase of Toyota Innova 2.5 G-1 Car from Toyota dealer at Hyderabad with Regd.No.AP-22 H-7788 under hire purchase agreement with the opposite parties on 31-3-2006. The complainant has availed loan for Rs.6,62,000/- payable in 60 monthly (fixed) equal installments @ Rs.14,000/- per month. The complainant has paid the total sum of Rs.3,26,000/- through installments to the OPs. The complainant also paid a sum of Rs.78,620/- towards down payment on 31-3-2006. The complainant has used the vehicle only 13 months and after that the said vehicle was damaged partly due to accident and that the complainant has not paid installments in time and requested time for payment of due installments. The OPs accepted the same but illegally without any prior notice the said vehicle was seized by the OP-1. The complainant approached OP-1 for release of vehicle on payment of due installments but the OP-1 did not release the vehicle and demanded for full payment. After that the complainant arranged the amount through a private loan and approached the OP several times for releasing of vehicle on payment of total amount but the OPs on every date postponed the same by showing one or other reasons. The OPs illegally seized the vehicle of the complainant without any prior intimation and without any notice. Such seizure is illegal, arbitrary and against to the principles of natural justice. The complainant already paid Rs.5,14,945/- out of total amount including life time tax and extra fittings and used the vehicle for 13 months only for which the complainant was compelled to be put huge loss. Without prior notice to the complainant seizing or selling of the vehicle is illegal and against to law. Due to seizing of the vehicle by OP-1 the complainant has suffered much mental pain and agony. The complainant got issued legal notice to the OPs on 18-12-2008 to return the vehicle by stopping further activities without consent of the complainant. But the OPs have given reply with false allegations. The acts of OPs amount to deficiency in service as they adopted unfair trade practice by seizing and selling the car without any prior notice to the complainant. The complainant is entitled to claim compensation for causing mental agony. Hence the present complaint is filed for the aforesaid reliefs.

3. The opposite parties having entered into their appearance through their counsel, and having availed sufficient opportunity not only failed to file any document before the Forum but also ultimately remained exparte.

4. The complainant filed his affidavit and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-20 on his behalf.

5. Now the point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for?


6. The allegations in the complaint remain uncontradicted. In addition to the affidavit, the complainant filed certain receipts and other connected correspondence etc., which are marked as Exs.A-1 to A-20. According to the complainant, he has purchased Toyota Innova 2.5 G-1 Car from Toyota dealer at Hyderabad with Regd.No.AP-22 H-7788 under hire purchase agreement with the opposite parties on 31-3-2006. The Ex.A-19 i.e., statement of loan account issued by OPs proves that the complainant has paid Rs.3,26,000/- in total to OPs under several installments between 13.7.2006 to 14.8.2008. The said document also proves that the complainant availed finance of Rs.6,62,000/- which is payable in 60 monthly installments @ 14,000/- per month from 2.5.2006. The Ex.A-13 is the legal notice issued by the complainant and Ex.A-14 is reply to Ex.A-13. The Ex.A-14 clearly reveals that the transaction took place between the complainant and OPs. It clearly speaks that the OPs provided loan on execution of hire purchase agreement by the complainant to purchase the car. It further reveals that OPs seized the vehicle and sold under auction on 24.10.2008 for Rs.4,55,000/-. The main allegation of the complainant is that OPs seized and sold away the vehicle without issuing any prior notice which amounts to unfair trade practice. However in Ex.A-14 OPs stated that they have issued pre sale notice to the complainant and the same is served on 6.10.2008. The OPs did not choose to file his counter and evidence to disprove the case of the complainant. In the absence of evidence inference can be safely drawn that OPs have not issued any prior notice to the complainant for seizing and selling the car. The OPs cannot appropriate the amounts by selling away the car illegally. The OPs ought to have followed the procedure contemplated under law. Therefore we hold that not issuing any notice to the complainant prior to seizure of car or before its sale is arbitrary, unjust and illegal and amounts to unfair trade practice. Since the complainant proved his case hence he is entitled for the reliefs.



Now it has to be decided whether the complainant is entitled for all the reliefs as prayed for. The first prayer of the complainant is to direct the OPs to return the car by receiving balance amount or to direct the OPs to refund the car cost of Rs.7,40,620/-. Admittedly, the car was sold away by OPs on 24.10.2008, hence it is not possible for OPs to return the car even if it is ordered. Therefore in our opinion to meet the ends of justice and to prevent further litigation it is just and proper to direct the OPs to refund the amount whichever the complainant invested subject to deducting the depreciation amount. Admittedly, the complainant used the car for 13 months. For deciding percentage of depreciation the learned counsel for the complainant relied upon the decision of Hon’ble West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, reported in 2008 (1) CPR 301 in the case Operator Manager, Auto Loan Consumer Service Department ABN Amro Bank Vs. Sri Praveen Khaitan and another, wherein it is held that “depreciation at 10 per cent per annum is to be deducted from purchase value”. According to the above decision 10% p.a. depreciation is permissible in the case on hand. As agreed by the complainant the vehicle cost as on the date of its purchase was Rs.7,40,620/-. The depreciation @ 10% p.a. for 13 months period comes to Rs.80,234/-. Therefore in our considered opinion OPs are liable to pay the following amount to the complainant.



Amount paid by the complainant Rs.3,26,000-00

Add: Initial amount paid by the complainant Rs. 78,620-00

_________________

Rs.4,04,620-00

Less: Depreciation @ 10% p.a. for 13 months

On Rs.7,40,000/- Rs. 80,234-00

________________

Amount payable by OPs Rs.3,24,386-00

________________
The complainant is claiming interest on his amount from the date of payment. With regard to awarding the interest we feel that no doubt the complainant is entitled for interest on his amount, because his amount was utilized by OPs. However, he is entitled for interest only from the date of sale of car, i.e., 24.10.2008 but not from the date as claimed by him because he paid the amount on several dates. Further we feel it is just and proper to award interest at 9% p.a. on the above amount till its payment by OPs. The second prayer of the complainant is to direct the OPs to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation as he suffered from illegal acts of OPs. Since the complainant is already compensated by way of interest, granting of lumpsum amount towards compensation for mental agony is not proper. However, we feel it is just and proper to award costs of Rs.1,000/- as the complainant filed complaint before the Forum by spending court fee and engaging advocate.



7. In the result, the complaint is allowed. The opposite parties are directed

jointly and severally to refund Rs.3,24,386/- together with interest @ 9% p.a. from 24.10.2008 till the payment and also to pay Rs.1,000/- towards costs of the proceedings to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order.

Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum

on this the 29th day of January, 2010.

C.C.No.139 of 2008

BETWEEN:

M/s. N.S.Guruva Reddy,

Rep. by its Proprietor N.S.Guruva Reddy,

S/o. Veera Reddy,

8/1, Arundelpet,

Guntur. … Complainant

AND

1. The Managing Director,

HDFC Bank Limited,

Head office at Narayana Proprieties,

Chandiveli, Mumbai.

2. The Manager,

HDFC Bank Limited,

Lakshmipuram, Guntur. … Opposite parties


This complaint coming up before us for final hearing on 11-01-10 in the presence of Sri Y.Kasikonda Reddy, Advocate for complainant and of Sri G.S.K.Srinivas, Advocate for opposite parties 1 & 2, 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 praying to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.15,00,000/- to the complainant towards damages and compensation and costs of Rs.10,000/-.

The averments of complaint in brief are as follows:

The complainant is a reputed cement dealer in Guntur District. The 1st opposite party is the Managing Director of HDFC Bank Limited having its Head Office at Mumbai and 2nd opposite party is the Branch Manager of said Bank having branch at Lakshmipuram Main Road, Guntur. The complainant is the proprietary concern and authorized dealer of KCP Limited since 35 years and put up goodwill with the management of KCP Limited. KCP cement has been supplying cement bags of different grads to the complainant, who used to issue cheques drawn in favour of KCP Limited for the cement supplied to him and the said cheques were drawn on IOB, Arundelpet, Guntur. Recently, all the banks having taken to reforms and opted for advanced technology by installing computers started issuing MICR cheques in place of ordinary cheques, which were used earlier. While so the complainants bank i.e. IOB, Aundelpet, Guntur embossed MIC numbers on the cheque book with hundred leaves issued to the complainant and the same was being used by the complainant during regular course of business. The cheques issued so by the complainant prior to 18-12-07 were honoured without any remark from any bank much less 2nd opposite party. Previously also two cheques bearing Nos.436905 and 436902 for Rs.70,000/- each were returned by the HDFC Bank Limited, Lakshmipuram, Guntur. Two cheques bearing Nos.435099, dt.15-12-07 and 435098 dt.15-12-07 issued by complainant for Rs.1,000/- and Rs.1,45,000/- respectively were returned as non MICR cheques by the 2nd opposite party without sending them for encashment to the complainant’s banker. The cheques that were issued by complainant earlier to KCP Limited out of the same cheque book were honored earlier by the opposite party bank without any objection. The cheques bearing Nos.436901 and 435100 dt.18-12-07 for Rs.30,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- were honored by the opposite party bank. The 2nd opposite party while within the knowledge of 1st opposite party returned the cheques stated above with incorrect remark without sending the cheques to the complainants banker. The 2nd opposite party is quite aware and has knowledge that the said cheques were bearing MICR number from the leaves. As the cheques issued by complainant were returned, it caused damage to reputation of complainant in the business circles. Due to the act of 2nd opposite party, the complainant lost business to a tune of Rs.5,00,000/-. Finally the complainant got issued legal notice dt.30-05-08 through his counsel and called upon the opposite parties to pay Rs.10,00,000/- the complainant towards damages and compensation. The opposite parties received the same and 2nd opposite party got issued a reply notice dt.27-06-08 with all false allegations. Due to the attitude and behavior of opposite parties the complainant suffered a lot mentally and financially which clearly falls under the deficiency of service under the provision of CP Act. Hence, the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation to the complainant towards damages and mental agony. Hence, the complaint.

The 2nd opposite party filed its version, which is adopted by 1st opposite party and the version in brief is as follows:

All the allegations made by the complaint are denied by opposite party and complainant is put to strict proof of the same. The 1st opposite party is the scheduled bank conducting its banking business with its registered office at Mumbai and the 2nd opposite party is its branch office. The complainant has filed the complaint with false allegations against the opposite parties without disclosing correct facts. This opposite party got issued reply notice to complainant. Clearing of cheques presented for collection is the duty of Clearing House and to give clarification in this regard. The banking business has a process for clearance of cheques of all banks in the local area which are required to be members of a Clearing House and all the banks in local area are bound by the instructions issued by Clearing House. For Guntur area the concerned clearing house is located at Vijayawada and it is managed by State Bank of Hyderabad. The opposite party is a scheduled bank, which is governed by rules framed by central office and Reserve Bank of India and issue of MICR cheques and non MICR cheques does not pertain to opposite party bank alone and hence, the complaint filed by complainant without adding the bank, which has issued non MICR cheque is liable to be dismissed for non joinder of essential party. The cheques which are presented for collection will be sent to Clearing House. As per the norms of banking practice, it is the clearing house which detects whether the cheque presented is MICR or non MICR cheque. Hence, there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party as the returning of cheques, as per the guidelines of RBI was done by the clearing house and it was informed by the 2nd opposite party. Return of cheques was not done by 2nd opposite party.

The complainant presented two cheques bearing Nos.435099 for Rs.1,000/- and 435098 for Rs.1,45,000/- for collection and they were sent to Clearing House at Vijayawada by 2nd opposite party and the said Clearing House returned the said cheques stating that these cheques are non MICR cheques vide a memorandum dt.24-12-07, which was duly informed to complainant by 2nd opposite party. The clearing of cheque and non clearing of cheque is purely the mechanism of Clearing House, which acts as per the guidelines of RBI. As such there is no deficiency of service on the part of 2nd opposite party.

The Reserve Bank of India and the other banks through the clearing house i.e., Vijayawada Bankers Clearing House, C/o. State Bank of Hyderabad, MICR Center, Vijayawada have been addressing various letters to all the banks with regard to phasing out of MICR cheques and issuance of MICR cheques and that number of circulars as advised by RBI have been circulated to all the branches to make necessary publicity and get the cheque books under non MICR to be exchanged for MICR cheque books and the MICR cheques should bear correct MICR band and any sort of deviation in the MICR band will not be entertained. The guidelines of RBI with regard to rules to be followed in honoring and returning non MICR cheques have been informed to all banks including complainant’s bank i.e., IOB, Arundelpet, Guntur. The cheques issued by complainant were non MICR cheques and they are only affixed with a stamp that they are MICR cheques. The clearing house and RBI have clearly mentioned that for MICR instruments code starts with ZERO and having transaction code as 10, 11 and 13 and it is mandatory that transaction code follows MICR code and exactly lies on the bottom of the cheque on the right hand side. Moreover, it is also mentioned that MICR codes starting with 522 should not be accepted and old MICR encoded cheques drawn in Guntur location without MICR band and Guntur code have to be rejected. The cheques presented by the complainant do not have any of the categories for clearing them and hence, rejected by clearing house and not by the 2nd opposite party. The complainant himself has accepted in the complaint that previously also two cheques bearing Nos.436905 and 436902 were returned. The complainant is not a customer of 2nd opposite party and there no relationship whatsoever for 2nd opposite party with the complainant. This opposite party has not done any deficiency of service nor caused any damaged to the complainant. Therefore, the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

The complainant filed affidavit in support of his version reiterating the facts mentioned therein. The opposite parties have also filed affidavit in support of their version reiterating the facts mentioned therein.

On behalf of complainant Ex.A1 to A7 are marked. Ex.B1 to B10 are marked for opposite parties.

Ex.A1 and A2 are the returned cheques dt.15-12-07 issued by complainant. Ex.A3 is the registered notice got issued by complainant to opposite parties. Ex.A4 is the reply notice got issued by 2nd opposite party. Ex.A5 and A6 are also returned cheques issued by complainant on 18-12-07 and 19-12-07 respectively. Ex.A7 is the statement of bank account of complainant maintained by IOB, Guntur for the period from 01-12-07 to 31-12-07.

Ex.B1 and B2 are the memorandums of HDFC Bank, Vijayawada Branch showing that the cheque Nos.435098 for Rs.1,45,000/-, dt.15-12-07 and 435099 for Rs.1000/-, dt.15-12-07 were returned on the ground that “improper MICR Band cannot be acceptable in MICR clearing. Ex.B3 to B7 are the instructions issued by State Bank of Hyderabad, MICR Center, Vijayawada to all the Clearing Member Banks of Vijayawada Clearing House. Ex.B8 is the minutes of Bankers Clearing House meeting held on 19-09-05. Ex.B9 is the letter issued by the State Bank of Hyderabad MICR CPC Vijayawada showing common irregularities noticed at MICR center. Ex.A10 is the notice to customers requesting them to deposit only valid MICR cheques for collection along with specimen invalid cheques.

Now the points for consideration are

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties?
2. To what relief, the complainant is entitled to?

POINTS 1 & 2

The some and substance of case on hand is that the complainant issued two cheques bearing Nos.435098 and 435099, dt.15-12-07 for Rs.1,45,000/- and Rs.1,000/- respectively in favour of KCP Cement Limited and they are returned by Clearing House at Vijayawada as the said cheques are not of MICR band. It is also the case of complainant that his banker IOB, Arundelpet, Guntur issued cheque book embossing MIC numbers on the cheques and that the similar cheques prior to 18-12-07 were honoured by 2nd opposite party and returned the cheques presented subsequent to 18-12-07.

It is the case of opposite party that the complainant has not added his banker i.e., IOB, Arundelpet Branch, Guntur who issued cheque book, as party to the proceedings. The said bank is a necessary party to the proceedings. The non-joinder of necessary party is fatal to the case of complainant.

As seen from Ex.B1 and B2, the cheques that were issued by complainant on 15-12-07 in favour of KCP Cements Limited for Rs.1,45,000/- and RS.1,000/- were returned by HDFC Bank Limited, Vijayawada but not by the 2nd opposite party. The Clearing House for complainant’s bank is State Bank of Hyderabad at Vijayawada which is a MICR center. The said MICR center issued instructions to all it’s Clearing Member Banks under Ex.B1 to B7 to receive and send MICR cheques only for clearance. But some of the Member Banks of clearing house including the banker of complainant i.e., IOB have not followed the instructions inspite of number of circulars issued by Clearing House. As seen from Ex.B8, the instructions issued by clearing house at Vijayawada, clearly show that the cheques bearing MICR band with transactions codes 10, 11, 12 and 13 shall only be sent for clearance. Ex.B5 shows errors committed by Clearing Member Banks while presenting MICR cheques wherein the percentage of each bank is shown. Out of the said banks, complainant’s bank presented cheques which are returned is shown as 12%. Thus it is clear from Ex.B5 that the complainant’s bank also has not forwarded the MICR cheques as per the instructions issued by clearing house. Since the cheques issued by complainant are improper MICR band, they are said to have been returned by Clearing House and the same was informed by HDFC Bank at Vijayawada under Ex.B1 and B2. The said cheques were not returned by 2nd opposite party with the knowledge of 1st opposite party. The Clearing House has given instructions to all its Clearing Member Banks as per the guidelines issued by RBI, which are to be necessarily followed by clearing house and the Member Banks of Clearing House. As the cheques issued to complainant by his banker is in violation of instructions of Clearing House, the cheques presented by complainant were retuned. Somehow the clearing house has accepted and honoured the earlier cheques that were issued by complainant even though they are not of MICR band. It shows that Clearing House has given reasonable time to Clearing Member Banks and honoured non-MICR cheques and that itself does not give any right to complainant for presenting non MICR cheques. In the circumstances of the case, we cannot find any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties 1 and 2. Therefore, the opposite parties 1 and 2 are not liable for any compensation.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed. In the circumstances of case, each party shall bear their own costs.

Hi,

I am Vikram Doke and I am trying collect my entire outstanding amount details of the Loan have taken 20 Months back from HDFC bank. Today I am not having my Loan Account Number and all the papers have been lost and when I am asking to provide me the outstanding details no one taking it seriously and asking me to put a mail to loansupport@hdfc.com which is
bouncing back.

I am following with HDFC Phone Banking Team again and again but no one is providing satisfactory response for clearing my outstanding amount without loan account number. I have also visited my nearest HDFC bank but they are also not aware about closure of the outstanding before the tenure and also not providing the loan account number.

Pls help me and kindly do the needful to get all my outstanding clear to avoid my unnecessary interest amount.

Pls do call me and clear all my queries and lert me know my total
outstanding Amount at earliest so that I could plan to get my
outstanding clear in minimum time.

Regards,
Vikram Doke
9870801214

COMPLAINT NO.2602 OF 2009

M/s Varshas Hi-Rich Furnitures

Rep. by its Proprietor,

P.K.Venkatesh Babu,

Aged about 43 yrs,

No.172C, Ground Floor,

5th Cross, Malleshearam,

Bangalore.

…. Complainant.

V/s

The Manager,

HDFC Bank Ltd.,

Makam Plaza,

3rd Main Road,

10th Cross Road,

Malleshwaram,

Bangalore – 55.

…. Opposite Party

-: ORDER:-
This complaint is for a direction to the Opposite Party to pay Rs.43,722/- wrongfully claimed towards non existing credit card balance, Rs.3,300/- towards the charges claimed for dishonored instrument and to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony and other expenses, on the following grounds:-


2. The complainant is having his account bearing No.00412000020201 with Opposite Party Bank. As on 08/08/2009 the credit balance in his account was Rs.83,817/-. The complainant had issued cheque for a sum of Rs.50,000/- in favour of M/s CENTAURY FIBERS PVT. LTD., and on presentment on 09/09/2009 the cheque was dishonored for no reasons. The Opposite Party debited Rs.300/- to his account towards dishonor of the cheque. He issued notice dated 15/09/2009 calling upon the Opposite Party to make good the damages. Having realized its error and in order to over come from the future consequences the Opposite Party gave reply dated 01/10/2009 with pleasing contents. The complainant had also availed credit card bearing No.5176351000202667 from the Opposite Party Bank. In the year 2005, due to the difference of opinion, he stopped the use of the credit card. With regard to the outstanding balance there was amicable settlement and on 31/01/2005 the authorized collection agent of the Bank gave proposal for Rs.16,500/- towards full and final settlement. Accordingly the complainant paid Rs.2,000/- by cash and issued cheque for Rs.14,500/-. The agent of the Bank issued two separate receipts and acknowledgement in the letter on 31/01/2005. Subsequent to 31/01/2005 he surrendered the credit card and did not avail any fresh card or used the earlier card. In spite of it, the Opposite Party sent a letter dated 08/09/2009 claiming Rs.43,722-14 paise as credit card balance. He immediately issued legal notice to give up such frivolous claim as he has not at all used the credit card from 31/01/2005 and he has no card at all. Though there was sufficient credit balance of Rs.83,817-20 paise in his account, the Bank did not honor the cheque for Rs.50,000/-. With intention to make unlawful gain, the Bank setout a frivolous claim for Rs.43,722-14 paise. As such the Bank is liable to pay the said amount with interest at 21% Per Annum and damages of Rs.25,000/-. Though the credit card was surrendered in the year 2005 with full and final settlement, the Bank has put forth a frivolous claim and the same amounts to unfair trade practice. Hence, the complaint.

3. In spite of service of notice, the Opposite Party has remained absent.

4. In support of the claim, the complainant has filed his affidavit and has produced copies of documents. However, when the matter came up for arguments, the complainant and his counsel remained absent.

5. The points for consideration are:-

1. Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party?

2. Whether the complainant entitled to the relief prayed for in the complaint?

6. Our findings are:-

Point No.(1) : In the Affirmative

Point No.(2) : As per final order,

for the following:-

-:REASONS:-

7. Since in spite of service of notice, the Opposite Party has remained absent and has not chosen to contest the claim made by the complainant, the material on record has gone unchallenged. To substantiate the contention that on 31/01/2005 itself he had paid Rs.16,500/- to the authorized agent of the Bank towards full and final settlement of the amount due under the credit card account, the complainant has produced the receipts dated 31/01/2005 issued by the collection agent of the Opposite Party Bank. He has also produced the copy of the letter dated 31/01/2005 addressed to the Bank. On the payment receipts, the authorized agent of the Bank has endorsed that the payment is towards final settlement. In the absence of material to show the contrary having regard to the receipts issued by the collection agent of the Opposite Party Bank, we have to accept the contention of the complainant that on 31/01/2005 he closed his credit card account by making payment of Rs.16,500/- towards full and final settlement. The contention of the complainant that he surrendered the credit card and never made use of the credit card subsequent to 31/01/2005 has remained unchallenged. Therefore, it follows that after making payment of Rs.16,500/- on 31/01/2005 towards full and final settlement of the amount due under the credit card account, the complainant was not due any amount towards that account. The fact that the complainant had issued a cheque for Rs.50,000/- favouring M/s CENTAURY FIBERS PVT., LTD., the cheque was returned unpaid and the Bank charged Rs.300/- towards the cheque return charges is evident from the entries in the statement of account pertaining to the account of the complainant. It is also seen from this account that as on 08/09/2009 the credit balance availed in the account of the complainant was Rs.83,817-20 paise. In spite of it, the Bank dishonored the cheque for Rs.50,000/- on 09/09/2009. In the notice dated 08/09/2009 the Bank has claimed that the complainant was still due Rs.43,722-14 paise towards the credit card account. The Bank also informed the complainant that if the complainant failed to make payment of that amount within seven days from the date of receipt of the notice the balance outstanding on the credit card account shall be debited to his Saving Bank Account. Based on the said notice dated 08/09/2009 the Bank appears to have debited the sum of Rs.43,722-14 paise to the account of the complainant on 23/09/2009 as is seen from the statement of account furnished by the Bank. But when the complainant had cleared the entire amount due under the credit card account on 31/01/2005, in the absence of material we are unable to up-hold that as per the notice dated 08/09/2009 the complainant was still due Rs.43,722-14 paise in his credit card account. The act of the Opposite Party in not defending the claim of the complainant makes it appear that the claim made by the Opposite Party in the notice dated 08/09/2009 is without any basis since the complainant had cleared the entire balance in his credit card account on 31/01/2005 and therefore the Opposite Party has chosen not to contest the matter. Therefore, debiting Rs.43,722-14 paise to the Saving Bank account of the complainant without any outstanding balance in the credit card account of the complainant clearly amounts to deficiency of service besides unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Party. In this view of the matter dishonoring of the cheque on 09/09/2009 in spite of there being sufficient balance available in the account of the complainant also amounts to deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party. Therefore, it becomes necessary to direct the Opposite Party to reverse the debit entry of Rs.43,722-14 paise in the account of the complainant so also debit entry of Rs.300/- made on 09/09/2009 towards the cheque return charges. The complainant is also entitled to compensation since the Bank had dishonored the cheque in spite of sufficient balance in the account. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in our opinion it is just and sufficient if the complainant is awarded compensation of Rs.5,000/- in that regard. In the result, we pass the following:-

-:ORDER:-

1. The complaint is allowed in part.

2. The Opposite Party is directed to reverse debit entry of Rs.43,722-14 paise and Rs.300/- made in the account of the complainant so as to restore those amounts to the credit of the complainant and also to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/-.

3. Compliance of this order shall be made within eight weeks from the date of communication.

4. Send a copy of this order to both parties free of costs, immediately.

5. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th Day of JANUARY 2010.

My parents have an acount in HDFC bank the telco colony branch, we have been running since days to get our net banking service activated.Our efforts have been a waste because of the incomplete inforamtion been furnished by the officials of the concerned branch.today as I went to submit the final level of the documents I was told that the it was still incomplete as it was not self attested by the account holder which was not mentioned before when i went to collect the form for the same, despite of having asked the documents required. When I went down requesting an official (DHRIVENDER KUMAR) to accept the same and that the attestetion would be given later by my dad,senior citizen.He instead stated that it is not possileand that it is general rule that all xerox require self-attestation instead was rude to. I simply fail to understand that is this the servic that HDFC boasts of and then belives in harrassing its customers for failure of communicating things properely.
I would like that HDFC to take actions against such officials like DHIVENDRA KUMAR who have just made the whole service of the bank look like a whole tedious affair which other banks provide for free and without mch hazzle.

Originally Posted by nisha rani

My parents have an acount in HDFC bank the telco colony branch, we have been running since days to get our net banking service activated.Our efforts have been a waste because of the incomplete inforamtion been furnished by the officials of the concerned branch.today as I went to submit the final level of the documents I was told that the it was still incomplete as it was not self attested by the account holder which was not mentioned before when i went to collect the form for the same, despite of having asked the documents required. When I went down requesting an official (DHRIVENDER KUMAR) to accept the same and that the attestetion would be given later by my dad,senior citizen.He instead stated that it is not possileand that it is general rule that all xerox require self-attestation instead was rude to. I simply fail to understand that is this the servic that HDFC boasts of and then belives in harrassing its customers for failure of communicating things properely.
I would like that HDFC to take actions against such officials like DHIVENDRA KUMAR who have just made the whole service of the bank look like a whole tedious affair which other banks provide for free and without mch hazzle.

Dear Ms Rani,

We regret the fact that you have had cause for complaint and we apologize for the inconvenience caused to you.

We make considerable efforts to training our staffs to ensure that a high level of service is maintained. We will further strengthen our initiative in this direction based on your feedback.

We would like to take this opportunity to inform you that you can register for our netbanking service at any HDFC ATM or through our phonebanking.

At HDFC ATMs, please follow the steps mentioned below:

a. On the Main screen, choose the option "other"

b. Next choose "Register for NetBanking"

c. On selection of this option, please confirm the request.

If you wish to use our phonebanking service to register, simply validate your account details by entering your TIN (Telephone PIN), and an agent will register your request.

Once we receive this request, a netbanking PIN will be generated and mailed to your registered address. Please note that this will be the login id for your netbanking.

You can also regenerate the IPIN online in case you hold HDFC Bank Debit Card. Please refer to our website for details.

We request you not to permit this one experience to dilute your perception of the Bank, which is rated as India's best private sector Bank today with the largest reach and national access network. We treasure your relationship with the Bank, and look forward to a long and continued patronage.

Regards,

Customer Assistance, HDFC Bank