BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM.
KAMRUP
C.C.No.86/2010
Present: I) Shri A.F.A.Bora, M.Sc.,L.L.B.,A.J.S -President
II) Smti Archana Deka Lahkar,B.Sc.,L.L.B. -Member
III) Sri Jamatul Islam,B.Sc
Former Dy Director, FCS & CA -Member
Sri Sunandan Khound - Complainant
S/0 Dr.Kalyan Khound
R/O-6-C Pink Enclave,
Near Hotel Starline,
Paltan Bazar, Guwahati-781008
-vs-
I) H.D.F.C. Bank Ltd. -Opposite parties
Registered Office-HDFC Bank House,
Senapati Bapat Marg,
Lower Parel (West), Mumbai-400013.
II) The Head-Liabilities and Payment Products.
H.D.F.C. Bank Ltd.
Senapati Bapat Marg,
Lower Parel (West), Mumbai-400013.
III) The Branch Manager,
H.D.F.C. Bank Ltd. Guwahati Main Branch
126,G.S.Road
Near Rajib Bhawan
Guwahati-781005.
IV) The Acquisition Manager , HDFC Bank Ltd.
126, G.S.Road,
Near Rajib Bhawan,
Guwahati-781005
Appearance
Learned advocate Sri I.Lahiri, Sri R.Singha and Sri H.Nath for the complainant .
Learned advocate Sri R.Chakraborty, Sri Manish Chaliha for the opposite parties.
Date of argument:- 16.3.2020
Date of judgment: - 6.10.2020
JUDGMENT
1) This is a complaint u/s 11 & 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 . The complainant Sunandan Khound filed the complaint against HDFC Bank including Branch Manager and Acquisition Manager , HDFC Bank Ltd. for adoption and unfair trade Practices and deficiency in service committed by opp.party for non-refunding of 300 GBP (Great Britain Pounds) through Indian Currency Rate in Forex Card No.4213200000257320 of Sundandan Khound bearing Savings Account No. 02641000065058 of HDFC Bank, Guwahati Main Branch,Guwahati-781005.
2) The brief of the fact as narrated is that complainant being a lawyer practicing at Gauhati High Court opened a Savings Bank Account number mentioned above at Guwahati Main Branch of HDFC Bank at Bhangagorh and got a Great Britain Pound Forex Card provided by the opp.party No.4 and had gone to Great Britain on 9.4.2010.
3) The complainant alleged that the said GBP Forex Card was loaded with 813 GBP, the complainant went to Great Britain on 9.4.2010 to meet his sister at London who was studying there. As per complaint petition the complainant had returned from Great Britain on 24.4.2010 by Air India Flight No. AI-112to Kolkata and reached Kolkata on 25.4.2010 and subsequently reached Guwahati on 26.4.2010.
4) The complainant further stated that on 8.5.2010 he had gone to HDFC Bank and found that 300 GBP had been deducted from the complainant’s Forex Card on 24.4.2010. According to him as he returned to India on 24.4.2010 there is no possibility of making any transaction on the said Forex Card as the card itself is invalid for India.
5) Knowing the above fact complainant made a telephonic complaint at phone No. 9957193333 on 8.5.2010 vide complaint No. MUM 147111. Subsequently on 15.5.2010 a phone call was received by the complainant where the office of HDFC Bank asked him to contact the local Bank at Guwahati and accordingly he gone to HDFC Bank , Guwahati Main Branch on 17.5.2010.
6) According to the complainant the branch office assistant called upon the Mumbai registered office for the grievances of the complainant . But till date the complaint dtd.8.5.2010 has not look into and complainant was deprived of his lawful rights.
7) The complainant further alleged that it is a gross irregularity and irresponsibility on the part of the opp.party to allow such transaction that the complainant had already left Great Britain is deficiency of service under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act.
8) The complainant had contacted Acquisition Manager , Opp.party No.4 who was helpless in the matter as it was not taken up in the Mumbai Registered Office. It is further alleged that the opp.party had failed to repay the 300 GBP through Indian currency and complainant had suffered immense financial loss.
9) According to the complainant due to illegal and unlawful act and omission committed by the opp.party and the entire transaction it is a clear case of unfair trade practice and deficiency of service for which complainant have suffered a lot.
10) For this irregularity and illegibility of the opp.party , the complainant claim for a compensation amounting to Rs. 4,00,000/-(Rupees four lakhs)only from opp.party No. 1 to 4 jointly and severally which is inclusive of 300 GBP through Indian currency rate with interest @ 20% per annum for unfair trade practice and deficiency of service committed by them u/s 2(g) and section 2® of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
11) The complainant further claim for cost of the proceeding from the opp.party for the reason of mental harassment and agony etc.
12) The complaint petition was supported by the documents as referred and the petition vide Annex.No. I to VII listed in the complaint petition.
13) The opp. party appears and contested the proceeding filing written statement. It is alleged that the case is not maintainable and there is no cause of action to institute a case . The opp. party alleged that , complaint petition is filed suppressing material fact and same is liable to be dismissed. The opp. party admitted the fact that a Forex Card No- 4213200000257320 was issued and loaded with 813 GBP and there was a lot of transaction made by the complainant and there was no such negligence on the part of the opp. party. According to the opp. party they had made investigation in the matter of the complaint and found that during the stay of the complainant at Great Britain used 500 GBP through his Forex Card in between 10/04/2010 and 24/04/2010. Further , a sum of 200 GBP was withdrawn 26/04/2010 and another 100GBP was withdrawn on 27/04/2010. Although the opp. party -HDCF Bank is not responsible for any withdrawal related to the Forex Card of the complainant but however the bank have accepted the 300 GBP on 26/04/2010 and 27/04/2010 as an act of possible fraudulent withdrawal by some unscrupulous elements which is commonly known as “skimming attack”. According to the opp. party the information of the Forex Card being used by the complainant was probably collected by such frauduler (due to negligence and ignorance of the complainant and could have withdrawn 300 GBP on the date referred above.
14) The opp. party specifically mentioned in the written statement that the complaint was disposed of by opp. party as a goodwill gesture and an amount of 300 GBP @Rs.70.12 totaling 21947.56 was already reloaded or credited in the Forex Card of the complainant on 16/08/2010. This transaction was reflected S.B. Account No of the complainant 02641000065058 on 24/09/2010 and it has already seen withdrawn as shown in the statement of account of savings of the complainant.
15) It is alleged that this fact has been suppressed and it demonstrate that the bank is not in fault at any time and it has made a payment of 300 GBP to the complainant much before the complainant on 23/08/2010. For this reason, the opp. party prays for dismissal of the petition with exemplary cost. the opp. party have annexed annexure-A, B,C . The transaction against Forex Card , the copy of transaction showing credit of 300 GBP on 24/09/2010 and copy of statement of account , saving bank account of the complainant respectively.
16) Having such pleadings in the W/S the opp. party have denied deficiency of service as alleged and parawise comment has been made alleging that complainant have failed to bring out a case against the opp. party . There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opp. party and denied the allegation stating that allegations are baseless and irrelevant and prays for dismissal of the case.
17) Having heard the ld. counsels of the parties we have duly considered the written argument submitted by the parties and our indisputed consideration is that from the face of records the contesting point of the dispute is only on the following points:
i) Whether the opp. party after receiving complaint made an enquiry and reloaded the 300GBP to Forex Account of the complainant on 16/08/2010.
ii) Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opp. party .
Our anxious scrutiny of records and relevant documents reveals that there is no specific denial on the receiving back of 300 GBP by the complainant . The written argument placed on record is silent about Annexure-A,B & C.
18) To determine the first issue , we have found on record Annex-A, the last 10 transaction of the complainant in his account No- 4213200000257320 where it has been reflected that on 16/08/2020, 300GBP has been deposited in the account of the complainant by the opp. party . Our anxious and careful consideration of this documents which has not been challenged by the complainant indicates clearly that Annexure-A , the last transaction of the complainant have shown receiving back of 300 GBP on 16/08/2010.
19) We have also gone through the photocopy of the documents termed as Annexure-B and Annexure-C as copy of transaction showing credit of 300 GBP on 24/09/2010 and copy of statement of account of the complainant.
20) In the above disputed fact while the opp. party namely Shri Dhiraj Bora was examined who was the Manager -HDFC Bank claimed that , the transaction on Forex Card was continued on 24/04/10, 26/04/10 and 27/04/10 continuing upto 30/04/10 at London as depicted on Ext-1 but out of goodwill the bank has reloaded 300 GBP on 16/08/2010 and same was credited to the savings account of the complainant and OPW-1 testifying Ext-2 and Ext-3 confidently claimed that 300 GBP was returned back on 16/08/2010 and complainant filed the instant complaint on 23/08/10 with an ulterior motive. While cross examining this witness by the complainant nothing can be brought out to disbelieve the confident version of the OPW-1 . There is not a single suggestion denying the reloading of the money by the opp. party . Moreover, by Ext-3 it is admitted that on 24/09/2010 there was a refund of Rs. 21947.53(equivalent to 300 GBP) was deposited into the bank account of the complainant.
21) Hence, our considered view is that , complainant have failed to establish any fact for not disbelieving the story narrated by opp. party that money on the Forex Card was reloaded by opp. party on 16/08/2010.
22) To arrive at a decision on our first issue we have clearly put reliance on 3 nos. of documents testified by the opp. party as Ext-1, 2 and 3 as already discussed. Here we have considered the testimony of CW-1 Shri Sunandan Khound . His evidence is relating to his Forex Card and travel history of Great Britain which are undisputed . But so far Ext-X is concerned where from he admits that on 23/09/2010, the officials of the opp. party gave him a statement showing refund of 300 GBP on 23/09/2010. It is stated by CW-1 that he asked for compensation for loss suffered alongwith cost of advocate engaging. This fact is also affirmative to hold a view on the disputed issue. It is also admitted by the complainant (CW-1) during cross examination that the disputed amount was credited to his account after filing of the case and he was not aware about his credit to his Forex Account on 16/08/2010 and admitted clearly that he received the money on 23/09/2010.
23) There is no evidence to show that no money was received back by the complainant and there was any refusal of payment amounting to 300 GBP to the complainant . Hence, this issue is decided in affirmative and in favour of the opp. party .
24) For Issue No-2 , we have considered the pleading of the opp. party who have clearly mentioned in his evidence that withdrawal by some unscrupulous elements commonly known as “skimming attack” which is common in western countries and fraudulars managed to collect the information about any card due to negligence or ignorance of the card holder while using Public Cash Vending machine . It is believed by the opp. party that 300 GBP was withdrawn after leaving Great Britain by the complainant on 24/04/10. The opp. party very clearly stated that as a goodwill gesture 300 GBP was reloaded on 16/08/10 and admittedly it has gone to the savings bank account of the complainant on 24/09/10. During cross examination nothing has been suggested to disbelieve the above version of the opp. party . instead of negligence and ignorance of the complainant as alleged the money was reloaded and we have considered Ext-1,2 & 3 available on record.
25) Hence, we found that there is no amount of deficiency of service on the part of the opp. party . The follow up action taken by the opp. party on receipt of information was a prompt and positive service rendered towards the complainant taking the responsibility by themselves without pushing it to the fraudulent withdrawal or so called “skimming attack”.
26) As such there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opp. party in rendering service to the complainant. Hence , issue no-ii is also decided in favour of the opp. party.
27) The case is found without merit and is liable to be dismissed. Parties will bear their own cost . Suit is dismissed on contest.
Given our hand and seal of the Forum on 6th October,2020.
Member Member President
( DCF,Kamrup) ( DCF,Kamrup) (DCF,Kamrup)
