State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Jagdev Singh vs Hdfc Bank on 13 November, 2017
Daily Order FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH. Consumer Complaint No.105 of 2016 Date of Institution : 04.04.2016 Order Reserved on : 09.11.2017 Date of Decision : 13.11.2017 Jagdev Singh Sanghia son of Sh. Ujagar Singh, resident of 11 Pennycress Close, Littleover, Dereby DE23 3WS, England (United Kingdom), through his Special Attorney Advocate Balwant Singh Dhindsa son of Sh. Kartar Singh, resident of Street No.1, Punia Colony, Haripura Road, Sangrur, Punjab. ....Complainant Versus HDFC Bank, 202-R, Model Town adjoining KFC, Jalandhar City, Punjab, through its Chief Manager Opposite party Consumer Complaint U/s 17(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended up to date). Quorum:- Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.
Smt. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member.
Present:-
For the complainant : Sh. A.K. Walia, Advocate For opposite parties : Sh. Sunil Narang Advocate with Ms. Davinder Bedi, Branch Manager
.................................................................................................
J. S. KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER:-
The complainant has filed this complaint U/s 17(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (in short the "Act) against OPs on the averments that he belongs to village Madaar District Jalandhar and now permanent resident of England. Vide instrument of special power of attorney dated 28.01.2016, he appointed Sh. Balwant Singh Dhindsa Advocate, resident of Street no.11, Punia Colony, Haripura Road, Sangrur as his special power of attorney holder to pursue his case. The complainant hired services of OP by depositing his amount with it in the shape of fixed deposits in following four different FDRs :-
A/c no. FDRs Customer ID Maturity Issued by Bank Amount A. 03404470054093 29019057 Rs.16,32,359.18 B. 03404470054083 29019057 Rs.16,32,359.09 C. 03404470054076 29019057 Rs.16,32,359.11 D. 03404470054066 29019057 Rs.l6,33,105.62 Total Rs.65,30,183/-
All FDRs were issued on 03.01.2012 and maturity date of the FDRs was 18.01.2013. All the FDRs carried interest @ 9% per annum. OP/Bank also issued four-deposit confirmation/renewal advice to him regarding the above said FDRs. He came to India and enquired about the status of his above said FDRs and other accounts maintained with OP/Bank in the year 2013, but OP did not respond to him. Mr. Harshdeep Madaan, the then Branch Manager of the Bank used to deal with him regarding the above said FDRs and he had indulged in malpractices and assured him after enquiry, that the amount would be paid to him. He also served a legal notice dated 23.11.2013 to OP, but no reply was ever received in that regard. The FDRs account were recurring accounts, which were automatically renewable for further terms and OP bank is, thus, liable to pay the FDRs amounts with up to date interest to him. The original FDRs are in possession of complainant. He approached OPs and requested to release the amount of FDRs with up to date interest to him, but of no use. He also made written requests/representations dated 25.12.2013 and 19.02.2014 to Principal Nodal Officer of the OP-Bank, but no amount has been paid to him till date. He has, thus, filed the complaint directing OP to pay the amount of FDRs i.e. Rs.65,30,183/- with the maturity value along with interest @ 9% interest per annum on the maturity amount till its realization and to pay Rs.10,00,000/- as damages on account of mental harassment along with travelling allowance from England to India amounting to Rs.2,00,000/-. He also prayed for compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- on account of deficiency in service of OP and Rs.1,00,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. Upon notice, OP appeared and filed written version contesting the complaint of the complainant raising preliminary objections that complaint is barred by limitation. The complainant has concealed the fact that he had earlier filed complaint against OP bank before Punjab NRI Commission at Chandigarh. The complaint is false, malicious, incorrect and malafide. The complex questions of facts and law are involved in the present case, which cannot be adjudicated in summary manner by Consumer Forum. On merits, it was denied that in the year 2013, complainant came to India and approached OP and enquired about the status of his above said FDRs. It was averred by OP that all the said FDRs were encashed on the instructions of the complainant and encashed amount was credited on 19.01.2013 in account no. 03401000125019 with HDFC Bank. The amount was credited in the account of the complainant after deducting TDS. As per statement of account bearing no. 03401000125019, the complainant transferred the amounts lying in his account to Shri Investment. Amounts of above said FDRs already stood paid to complainant. The complainant has another account with HDFC Bank Branch Sheikhan Bazar Jalandhar, bearing account no. 25251000005219. As per policy of the OP/Bank, it gives personalized services to all its customers through its Relationship Manager, who provides necessary assistance to its customer. It was further averred that Harshdeep Madaan left his service with the Bank in the year 2010. The withdrawals in the account of complainant has been allowed as per his mandate only. The withdrawal of Rs.40 lac was made from the account of the complainant against cheque issued by him in favour of Shri Investment. All transactions were proceeded by the Bank as per instructions of complainant. Any deficiency in service was denied by OP on its part and it prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-A, along with copies of documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-21 and Mark A to Mark I and closed evidence. As against it; OP tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh.Davinder Bedi Branch Manager HDFC Bank Ex.OP-A along with copies of documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-11 and closed the evidence.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and also examined the record of the case.
5. The controversy in this case is quite complex for settlement, as to whether complainant gave authorization for withdrawal of the amounts from his fixed deposit receipts from his accounts or not. The version of the complainant is that his fixed deposit receipts amounts of Rs.65,30,183/- have been withdrawn unauthorizedly without any such authorization by him. On the other hand, OP filed written reply raising the plea that Harshdeep Madaan was ex-employee of the OP/Bank and he left his service with OP/bank in the year 2010. The complainant issued cheque for withdrawal of the above amounts, whereupon amounts were withdrawn bearing his own instructions. The complainant moved to Punjab NRI Commission at Chandigarh in this regard, which resulted into registration of FIR no. 31 dated 29.04.2015 U/s 420, 408,465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC registered at P.S Division no. 6, Jalandhar and Harshdeep Madaan was arrested by the police therein. The complainant has concealed this fact that he entered into compromise with Harshdeep Madaan, the ex-employee of OP/Bank. The complainant had already received Rs.45 lac from Harshdeep Madaan. The alleged disputed amount was invested in National Stock Exchange. The compromise was arrived at between the complainant and Harshdeep Madaan to the effect that as and when the amount was released by the National Spot Exchange of India under Committee constituted by Bombay High Court, amount of Rs.23,00,000/- shall be received by Jagdev Singh complainant and further amount will be received by Harshdeep Madaan. OP pleaded that complainant concealed this material fact that he was dealing with Harshdeep Madaan at his own level in his individual capacity and OP /Bank was nowhere involved in it.
6. We can resolve the controversy with the aid of evidence on record in this case. The pleadings of the parties have been carefully appraised by us in this case. OP pleaded that payments were made from the account of the complainant, as per his own instructions and OP/Bank was nowhere involved in it. Sh. Balwant Singh Dhindsa special attorney holder of the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-A on behalf of the complainant in this case. He testified in his affidavit that complainant deposited four FDRs amounts of Rs.65,30,183/- with the OP/Bank on 03.01.2012 and their maturity dates were 18.01.2013. The fixed deposits receipts carried interest @ 9% p.a. and OPs also issued four deposit confirmation/renewal advice to the complainant. When complainant came to India, he found that his fixed deposits amounts have been withdrawn from his account without his authority. The fixed deposit receipts amounts have not been released to him despite his continuous requests. The fixed deposits receipt amounts were recurring accounts, which were automatically renewable for the further terms and the OP/Bank is liable to pay fixed deposit receipt amounts with uptodate interest. He made written request /representation dated 25.12.2013 and 19.02.2014 to the Principal Nodal Officer on behalf of the complainant, but grievance of the complainant has not been redressed. This witness has testified malpractice on the part of OP. He further stated that complainant knocked the door of Punjab NRI Commission Chandigarh and with its intervention, FIR no. 31 dated 29.04.2015 was registered at Police Station Division No. 6, Jalandhar for the offences under Sections 420,408, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC. This witness stated that original FDRs are in possession of the complainant and on 09.01.2013, he was not present in India and giving any instructions to Bank by him was not feasible to be conceived at all. The document of special power of attorney executed by complainant in favour of Balwant Singh Dhindsa is Ex.C-1 on the record to pursue this case on his behalf. Copies of the FDRs are Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-5 on the record. Ex.C-6 is intimation sent to Grievance Redressal Officer of HDFC Bank on 25.12.2013 for withdrawal of his fixed deposit receipt amounts followed by letter Ex.C-7 addressed to Principal Nodal Officer, HDFC Bank Ltd on 19.02.2014 by complainant. The complainant served a legal notice through Sh. Gurdip Singh Sachdev Advocate, vide Ex.C-8 on the record in this regard. The complainant moved application to Punjab NRI Commission at Chandigarh in this regard, whereupon order dated 31.10.2014 was passed. Various orders passed by the above Commission are Ex.C-10 to Ex.C-21 on the record.
7. OP also led rebuttal evidence consisting of affidavit of Davinder Bedi Branch Manager HDFC Bank Ltd Ex.OP-A on the record to the effect that the FDRs were issued to complainant on 03.01.2012 and the maturity dates were 18.01.2013. The cause of action arose in January 2013 to file the complaint, but complaint was actually filed in April 2016, which was clearly beyond the statutory period of two years from the date of cause of action, hence liable to be dismissed being barred by time. This witness further deposed that complainant approached Punjab NRI Commission at Chandigarh and has availed his remedy thereat and hence present complaint is liable to be dismissed on this score. Vide Ex.R-1, complaint filed by OP/Bank before NRI Commission Punjab at Chandigarh. Affidavit of Jayant Pathak Branch Manager and Manpreet Singh Branch Manager of HDFC Bank Ex.R-2 on the record. Davinder Bedi Branh Manager HDFC Bank further stated that FIR was registered with intervention of NRI Commission Punjab against Harshdeep Madaan ex-employee of the OP/Bank. He further deposed that complainant entered into compromise with Harsh Madaan ex-employee of OP/Bank and concealed this fact in this case, whereby complainant agreed to receive the amount of Rs.68 lac from him and out of which complainant had already received the amount of Rs. 45 lac and rest of the amount would be paid to complainant by National Spot Exchange under the supervision of Committee constituted by Bombay High Court. This witness further deposed that complainant dealt with Harshdeep Madaan ex-employee of OP/Bank in his individual capacity at his own level and OP-bank is not involved in it. Ex.R-3 is compromise dated 16.11.2016 in this regard. This witness further stated that copy of orders dated 29.04.2015 and 26.04.2017 for quashing of FIR are Ex.R-4 and Ex.R-5 and petition for quashing the FIR no. 31 dated 29.04.2015 is Ex.R-6 of our own High Court. He further stated that FDRs were encashed on the instructions of the complainant and encashed amounts were credited on 19.01.2013 in his account no.03401000125019 with HDFC Bank Ltd. Copies of FDRs are Ex.R-7 to Ex.R-10 and entries of aforesaid FDRs is Ex.R-11.
8. We have carefully examined the material evidence brought on record by both the parties. It is an undisputed fact on the record that complainant deposited four fixed deposits receipts with OP/Bank total amounts of Rs.65,30,183/-, vide Ex.R-2 to Ex.R-5 on the record. The amounts were withdrawn from the fixed deposit receipts account of the complainant and were transferred in account no. 03401000125019, vide Ex.R-11 on the record. The core controversy is whether the amounts were withdrawn by means of any cheques or other authority letter issued by the complainant from his account. No document to this effect has been produced on the record. One thing is evident that Harsh Madaan played an active part in the withdrawal of the amounts of complainant from fixed deposit receipts, who happened to be an ex-employee of OP/Bank. The amounts were firstly transferred to the account of the complainant, vide Ex.R-11 and thereafter they were invested somewhere else. Had he not played an active part in this malpractice thereby, no question of entering into compromise of Harsh Madaan with complainant had arisen, vide Ex.R-3, on the record. Compromise Ex.R-3 is signed by Harsh Madaan as well as Balwant SIngh Dhindsa attorney holder of the complainant, which was carried into effect between the parties. On the basis of this compromise Ex.R-3, Harsh Madaan agreed to pay total amount of Rs. 68 lac to complainant. Out of which amount of Rs.22,50,000/- has been paid to complainant, vide banker cheque no. 509621 dated 15.11.2016 drawn on Dhanlaxmi Bank Ltd Branch Jalandhar City for sum of Rs.12.50 lacs and another cheque of Rs.12,50,000/- has been paid, vide cheque no. 509622 dated 15.11.2016 drawn on Dhanlaxmi Bank Ltd Branch Jalandhar City for Rs.10 lac from the account of Harshdeep Maddan. It was further agreed in this compromise amount of Rs.23 lac shall be released by National Spot Exchange of India under Committee constituted by Bombay High Court., which shall be received by complainant and thereafter remaining amount, if any, shall be received by Harshdeep Madaan. This document Ex.R-3 has proved that complainant through his attorney Baldev Singh Dhindsa entered into compromise of this disputed amount with Harshdeep Madaan. Vide R-4 order passed by High Court in CRM-M 46125 of 2016 to the effect that this Court would accept the proposal for compromise only in the event of making payment of the balance amount and receipts thereof be placed on record and not otherwise. Harshdeep Madaan was directed to deposit Rs.1 lac with the office of SSP Jalandhar under order of this Court by way of compensation for settling the criminal matter. Ex.R-5 is petition for quashing filed by Harshdeep Madaan of FIR no. 31 dated 29.04.2015, as referred to above. Vide order dated 26.04.2017 of High Court in CRM-M 46125 of 2016, matter was shown to be compromised because balance amount has been paid by Harsh Madaan to complainant.
9. We have come to this conclusion that Harsh Madaan has played an active part in withdrawing the above amounts of complainant from his accounts. The version of the OP is that amounts were withdrawn by means of authorized documententation. No such document has been placed on the record by OP/Bank to vindicate its stand. We find that OP/Bank is deficient in service because they have not placed on record the documents on the basis of which they allowed the withdrawal of the amount from fixed deposit receipts of complainant and sent them to the account of the complainant. The complainant has already received the amount of Rs.45 lac as per order of Hon'ble High Court and due to this reason, FIR, which was registered against Harsh Madaan and was ordered to be quashed on the basis of the compromise by Hon'ble High Court. OP/Bank is certainly deficient in service in permitting the withdrawal of the fixed deposit receipts , which are otherwise auto renewable.
10. So in the circumstances of the case, we hold OP/Bank is deficient in service on this point and direct it to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- (rupees five lac only) for deficiency in service of OP/Bank to complainant and in addition to that OP/Bank is directed to pay interest as agreed in the fixed deposit receipts to complainant from the date of their maturity dates till payment of withdrawal amounts to complainant and complainant has already received the amount of Rs. 45 lac on the basis of compromise approved by Hon'ble High Court. The complainant is also held entitled to compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental harassment and Rs.30,000/- as cost of litigation. The above- said amounts shall be paid by OP to complainant within 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
11. Arguments in this complaint were heard on 09.11.2017 and the order was reserved. Certified copies of the order be communicated to the parties under rules.
12. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(J. S. KLAR) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (SURINDER PAL KAUR) MEMBER November 13, 2017 (ravi)