Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/386/2021

M/s Mittal Mechanical Works Pvt. Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC Bank Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Dr. Deepak Jindal

01 Nov 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

[1]

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/386/2021
Date of Institution	:	15/06/2021
Date of Decision	:	01/11/2023

M/s Mittal Mechanical Works Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.182/82, Phase I, Industrial Area, Chandigarh through its Director R.K. Mittal.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

HDFC Bank Ltd., SCO 85, Sector 46, Chandigarh through its General Manager.

… Opposite Party

[2]

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/387/2021
Date of Institution	:	15/06/2021
Date of Decision	:	01/11/2023

M/s Mittal Steels, Plot No.169, Phase II, Industrial Area, Chandigarh through its Proprietor R.K. Mittal.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

HDFC Bank Ltd., SCO 85, Sector 46, Chandigarh through its General Manager.

… Opposite Party

 

[3]

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/388/2021
Date of Institution	:	15/06/2021
Date of Decision	:	01/11/2023

M/s Mittal Cutter and Allied Works Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.182/82, Phase I, Industrial Area, Chandigarh through its Director R.K. Mittal.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

HDFC Bank Ltd., SCO 85, Sector 46, Chandigarh through its General Manager.

… Opposite Party

[4]

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/385/2021
Date of Institution	:	15/06/2021
Date of Decision	:	01/11/2023

M/s Ishan Fasteners Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.169, Phase II, Industrial Area, Chandigarh through its Director R.K. Mittal.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

HDFC Bank Ltd., SCO 85, Sector 46, Chandigarh through its General Manager.

… Opposite Party

[5]

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/384/2021
Date of Institution	:	15/06/2021
Date of Decision	:	01/11/2023

M/s I.T. Fasteners, Plot No.169, Phase II, Industrial Area, Chandigarh through its Proprietor Smt. Shalini Mittal.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

HDFC Bank Ltd., SCO 85, Sector 46, Chandigarh through its General Manager.

… Opposite Party

 

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate Proxy for Dr. Deepak Jindal, Advocate for complainant
	:	Ms. Monika Thatai, Advocate for OP

 

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. By this order, we propose to dispose of the captioned consumer complaints, filed by the respective complainants, in which common questions of law and facts are involved. The facts, apart from minor variation here and there, are also almost analogous. The complainants in the above complaints have sought the relief of refund of amount i.e. minimum charges and other charges and compensation etc. As such, during arguments, it was agreed upon by the parties that captioned consumer complaints can be disposed of by passing a consolidated order.
2. For the sake of brevity, relevant details, necessary for the disposal of the aforesaid consumer complaints i.e. account No., charges levied etc., in respect of each consumer complaint, are tabulated as under :-

S. No.	C.C. No.	Current Account No. (Subject Account)	Total amount levied for the year 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20	Statement of Account
	CC/386/2021	04342320000644	₹1,11,423/-	Annexure C-2
	CC/387/2021	04342320000610	₹84,661/-	Annexure C-2
	CC/388/2021	04342320000654	₹1,38,434/-	Annexure C-2
	CC/385/2021	04342320000627	₹42,129/-	Annexure C-2
	CC/384/2021	04342320000637	₹93,546/-	Annexure C-2

 

3. To dictate the order, facts are being taken from Consumer Complaint No.386 of 2021-M/s Mittal Mechanical Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd.
4. It transpires from the allegations as projected in the consumer complaint that the complainant has its current account (hereinafter referred to as “subject account”) with the OP bank.  On the basis of complainant’s good business transaction with the OP bank, vide letter dated 16.7.2008 (Annexure C-1), OP bank raised the account of the complainant to preferred category and clearly stated that on the basis of this facility, complainant will not be charged for non-maintenance of minimum average balance in the accounts and further that any inward and outward cheque return charges, if levied, would be reverted with immediate effect and in addition to that there will not be any charges for the statement request, demand drafts and issuance of cheque book. Since the complainant proved to be a good customer, letter (Annexure C-1) was issued by the OP bank to the complainant. However, complainant noticed in the bank statements (Annexure C-2) for the year 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20 that the OP bank, without informing the complainant, had levied minimum balance charges and other charges totaling ₹1,11,423/-. OP was requested several times to reverse the minimum charges and other charges, but, with no result.  In this manner, the aforesaid acts of the OP amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence, the present consumer complaint.
5. OP resisted the consumer complaint and filed its written version, inter alia, taking preliminary objections of maintainability, cause of action, jurisdiction and limitation.  It is alleged that the complainant is not a consumer under the Act and the consumer complaint is liable to be dismissed.  It is further alleged that the consumer compliant of the complainant is hopelessly time barred as the complainant has been claiming charges which were levied in the year 2017.  However, it is admitted that the complainant was raised to preferred portfolio in the year 2008, but, alleged that since the complainant was not meeting the criteria as per the minimum requirements for retaining a preferred portfolio, the account was converted from preferred to a normal account and the charges were levied as per the schedule of charges (Annexure OP-2).  It is further alleged that the letter dated 16.7.2018 is a disputed one since it does not bear any name of the employee, employee code, reference number or any stamp of HDFC bank.  It is further alleged that the complainant was duly informed by the OP that the account has been deraced from preferred to normal vide emails dated 21.11.2018 and 29.8.2019 and, therefore, all charges would be levied.  The present consumer complaint has been filed by the complainant in order to harass the OP and gain undue advantage.  On merits, the facts as stated in the preliminary objections have been reiterated. The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
6. Despite grant of sufficient opportunity, rejoinder was not filed by the complainant to rebut the stand of the OP.
7. In order to prove their case, parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of respective affidavits and supporting documents.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the file carefully, including the written arguments.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the parties that the complainant is having the subject account with the OP for the last many years and the said account has been raised to preferred category, having facility of no charges for non-maintenance of minimum average balance, inward and outward cheque return charges, statement of account request, demand drafts and issuance of cheque book and the same continued from 2008 to 2018 and it is only in the financial years 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20 that the OP had levied the aforesaid charges to the complainant on the ground that the complainant had not been meeting the criteria as per the minimum requirements for retaining a preferred portfolio, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if the OP is unjustified in unilaterally converting the preferred portfolio of the complainant to a normal account and thereby levying the aforesaid charges upon the complainant and the said act of the OP amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and the complainant is entitled for the reliefs prayed for in the consumer complaint, as is the case of the complainant, or if the OP is justified in converting the subject account from preferred portfolio to normal and levying the aforesaid charges upon the complainant and the consumer complaint, being not maintainable is liable to be dismissed, as is the defence of the OP.
   2. Perusal of Annexure C-1 clearly indicates that the account of the complainant was raised to preferred category on 16.2.2008 and thereby OP had provided certain facilities to the complainant and the relevant portion of the said letter is reproduced as under :-

“This is to confirm that we are raising your accounts to the preferred category and on the basis of this facility you will not be charged for non maintenance of minimum average balance in the accounts.

Also basis this relationship, any inward and outward cheque return charges levied in your account will be reversed with immediate effect and there will not be any charges for the statement request, demand drafts and cheque book issuance.

This applies to savings account as well.”

3. Though OP has admitted in its written version that the subject account of the complainant was raised to preferred portfolio in the year 2008 and same was again converted to a normal account in the year 2018, but, challenged the genuineness of Annexure C-1 on the ground that same does not bear any name of employee, employee code, reference number or stamp of HDFC Bank. However,  as OP in its written version has categorically admitted in para 7 of the preliminary objections that the complainant was raised to preferred portfolio in the year 2008, which is also the case of the complainant by relying upon letter (Annexure C-1) signed by authorised signatory of OP, it stands proved on record that OP had given the aforesaid facility of preferred category account to the complainant in the year 2008 vide its letter (Annexure C-1) and also that OP has failed to rebut genuineness of this letter by leading any evidence i.e. by examining any official of OP bank that the same was never issued by it to the complainant. Thus, one thing is clear on record that the complainant has been granted the aforesaid facility by the OP since the year 2008 in pursuance to its letter (Annexure C-1) issued to the complainant.
4. The consumer complaint is resisted by the OP on the ground that the complainant was informed vide emails dated 21.11.2018 and 29.8.2019 that its account has been deraced to normal account and, therefore, all the above mentioned charges would be levied.  However, surprisingly the aforesaid emails have not seen the light of the day, till date, as the same have not been produced or proved by the OP in this case.  Hence, it is safe to hold that the OP, without informing the complainant, itself has unilaterally downgraded the account from preferred to normal and started levying aforesaid charges and the said act of OP certainly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on its part.
5. The consumer complaint is further resisted by the OP on the ground that the same is hopelessly barred by time. However, since OP had levied the charges even in the financial year 2019-20, as is evident from the statement of account (Annexure C-2), therefore, it is safe to hold that the complainant has continuing cause of action and the instant consumer complaint, filed in the year 2021, is well within the prescribed period of two years provided under the Act.
6. So far as the contention of the OP that the consumer complaint is not maintainable, being in the nature of commercial transactions, is concerned, since the dispute in the present consumer complaint is only with regard to unilateral withdrawal of certain facilities provided by the OP bank to the complainant and thereby levying of charges, as detailed above, it cannot be said that the said services provided by the OP were used in any activity directly intended to generate profit by the complainant. Here we are strengthened by the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Harsolia Motors & Ors., 2023 LiveLaw SC 313, and relevant portion/ headnote of the same is reproduced as under:-

"Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - there is no such exclusion from the definition of the term "consumer" either to a commercial enterprise or to a person who is covered under the expression "person" defined in Section 2(1)(m) of the Act, 1986 merely because it is a commercial enterprise. (Para 36)

Consumer Protection Act, 1986; Section 2(1)(d) - Taking a wide meaning of the words "for any commercial purpose", it would mean that the goods purchased or services hired should be used in any activity directly intended to generate profit. Profit is the main aim of commercial purpose, but in a case where goods purchased or services hired is an activity, which is not directly intended to generate profit, it would not be a commercial purpose. (Para 40).”

 

7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is safe to hold that the complainant has successfully proved the cause of action set up in the consumer complaint and the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed.

9. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, all the captioned consumer complaints succeed, the same are hereby partly allowed and OP is directed as under, in each consumer complaint :-

1. to refund the entire deducted amount to the complainant (as depicted in column No.(4) of the table in para No.2 above), alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of this consumer complaint i.e. 15.6.2021 onwards.
2. to pay an amount of ₹10,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment;
3. to pay ₹10,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

10. This order be complied with by the OP within forty five days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, the payable amounts, mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, shall carry interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
11.   A certified copy of this order be also placed on the file of the other consumer complaints, mentioned above, which shall form part and parcel of that file.
12. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.
13. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced 01/11/2023 hg			Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
			Sd/- [Surjeet Kaur] Member
			Sd/- [Suresh Kumar Sardana] Member