This consumer complaint has been filed by the complainant Arjun Vishnu Kirpalani against the opposite parties HDFC Securities Ltd. & ors.

2.      Heard the learned counsel for the complainant at the admission stage. Learned counsel stated that the complaint has been filed by the complainant for deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party bank.  The opposite party bank has been deficient in providing proper service in connection with purchase of Mutual Funds, providing service of granting of loan to the complainant and in many other services. It has been alleged that even though the loan was sanctioned no documents have been provided by the opposite party bank.  It was further alleged that the complainant has put in Rs.16,28,08,454/- in the bank.  However, the bank has traded without any knowledge to the complainant about the sale and purchase of different shares as well as of the Mutual Funds.  Learned counsel stated that the complainant started transacting through the opposite party bank from the year 2016 and has suffered great loss due to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party bank.

3.      I have given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant and have examined the record.  It is seen from the complaint that the complainant in para 22 of the complaint has given the details of Rs.16,28,08,454/- as follows:-

“(i)  Approximate loss suffered by the complainant towards Share Market mostly in call and put options trading and Business:- 11,47, 14,278/- (Rupees Eleven Crores Forty Seven Lacs Fourteen Thousand Two Hundred and Seventy Eight only).

(ii)  Approximate loss suffered by the complainant on account of brokerage/commissions and taxes and other ancillary charges:-4,75,94,176/- (Rupees four Crores Seventy Five Lacs Ninety Four Thousand One Hundred and Seventy Six only).

(iii) The complainant used to travel Europe regularly and due to heavy international call charges, he lost approximately 5 lacs towards cell phone charges over four years due to lengthy long distance calls during trading hours.

(iv) Total Loss suffered by the complainant: Rs.16,28,08,454/- (Rupees sixteen crores twenty eight lacs eight thousand four hundred and fifty four only).”

4.      Similarly about the loans, the following has been averred in the complaint:-

“Thus the duty of the bank to provide good service and to redeem reward points properly and respond appropriately was totally missing in HDFC Bank and HDFC Credit Card Services.  The said EMIs are being paid through the bank account of the complainant.  The details of the said loans are as under:-

      It is stated that the above loan facilities figuring at Sr.No.1 & 2 were given to the complainant by the opposite party No.1 HDFC Bank Ltd., however, the loan documents were never supplied to the complainant.  The complainant is not aware as to from which financial services companies/entities the other loan facilities were given, for want of loan and other related documents.”

5.      Coming to the question of investment in mutual fund, it is seen that the statutory warning also accompanies with any advertisement or any brochure relating to mutual fund investment that investments in mutual fund are subject to market risks.

6.      The investments in mutual fund are basically aimed at earning profit and the transactions will be treated as of commercial nature as the same are not for earning livelihood by means of self-employment in the present case because the amounts of investments are quite high and the complainant who is a Canadian citizen, is earning in Canada and investing in India.  Thus, the issue of earning livelihood by means of self-employment is not material in the present case.  Mutual funds are subject to market risks so, if an investor incurs loss, the broker cannot be blamed. It is further seen that no allegation has been made by the complainant on the bank that bank has misappropriated funds of the complainant from the d-mat account or any other account, therefore, the deficiency on the part of the bank is not proved.  Thus, the complaint in respect of investments in mutual funds is dismissed in limine.

7.      One of these loans No.4624921 has already been closed, however, another loan No.5613403 is active as this is a commercial loan.  This Commission cannot entertain the issue regarding this loan as the loan has not been taken for earning of livelihood by means of self-employment.

8.      Other loans relate to purchases of cars (old and new) and the complainant has not given the date of sanction of these loans.  It is mentioned at one place that the loan relating to auto premium loan for Rs.1,28,75,000/- is sanctioned on 27.10.2016. The date of sanction in respect of other loans are not given in the complaint, therefore, the same may be assumed being some date in the year 2016 or at the most 2017.  If the bank did not give the details of the loan account, the complainant should have filed the consumer complaint at that time. Moreover, it is also not clear, if the complainant was not satisfied by opening one loan account, why did he prefer this bank for obtaining other loans in the same sector.  Thus, the claim filed in respect of not receiving the details of the loan account seems to be beyond limitation period of two years and therefore, the same cannot be entertained by this Commission. However, this being the genuine claim of the complainant as each loan holder is supposed to get the loan agreement and other details from the bank, I direct the HDFC Bank to provide the details of the loan accounts to the complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of this order.  In the present case, no notice is being issued to the HDFC as this is a very trivial issue and the bank is obliged to provide the details of the loan account to the loanee.  However, if the bank is not satisfied with this order, they will be at liberty to approach this Commission.

9.      Consumer Complaint No.1303 of 2019 is accordingly disposed of.