State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Dr. Shib Kumar Mukherjee vs H.D.F.C. Bank on 24 April, 2013
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission West Bengal BHABANI BHAVAN (GROUND FLOOR) 31, BELVEDERE ROAD, ALIPORE KOLKATA 700 027 S.C. CASE NO. : CC/38/2011 DATE OF FILING : 11.05.2011 DATE OF FINAL ORDER: 24.04.2013 COMPLAINANTS Dr. Shib Kumar Mukherjee S/o Late Sudhir Kumar Mukherjee Resident of Street No. 59, Quarter No. 11/B, Post Office-Chittaranjan Dist. Burdwan, West Bengal, Pin-713 331. OPPOSITE PARTIES H.D.F.C. Bank Stephen House 40, B.B.D.Bag (East) Kolkata-700 001. BEFORE : MEMBER : MR. S.COARI MEMBER : MRS. MRIDULA ROY FOR THE COMPLAINANT : Mr. Nitya Gopal Mukheree, Ld. Advocate FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTY : Mr. Sarbari Dutta, Ld. Advocate : O R D E R :
MR. S.COARI, LD. MEMBER The present petition of complaint has been filed by one Dr. Shib Kumar Mukheree against HDFC Bank thereby alleging deficiency in service and praying for a direction upon the OP/Bank to operate the bank accounts of the complainant bearing Nos. 0083500053351, 0083500053420 and 0081000146303 along with a further direction upon the OP/Bank to make payment of Rs. 49,41,401/- together with accrued interest @ 18% per annum in favour of the complainant.
The complainants case, in brief, is that the complainant is enjoying Fixed Deposit Account facilities with the Bank amounting to Rs. 5,00,000/- and Rs. 3,00,000/- respectively and that he is also enjoying Savings Bank Account facilities having a balance of about Rs. 1,00,000/-.
According to the complainant, the complainant is a regular investor in shares of different companies and that he works on behalf of others for suitable investments in the share markets.
According to the complainant, in the month of December, 2001 the complainant was informed by the OP/Bank that the aforesaid accounts were frozen and no transactions were allowed at the instance of the complainant in respect of those accounts. It is the further case of the complainant that in pursuance to a criminal case being G.R.No. 3197 of 2001 on 2.6.2003 the complainant was arrested and placed under police custody till 11`.6.2003 and subsequently he was remanded to jail custody till 25.8.2003 and thereafter he was able to obtain bail from the appropriate forum. According to the complainant, the police case was in connection with the complainants business in share transactions. It is the further case of the complainant that during police custody the complainant was compelled to write a letter to the Bank with a request to pay Rs. 5,00,000/- in favour of one Mr. Ramal Sircar and the Bank without any rhyme and reason and without obtaining any confirmation and/or instruction from the complainant disbursed the said amount in favour of a third party namely Ramal Sircar. According to the complainant, the acts on the part of the Bank tantamounted to gross deficiency in service and hence, the petition of complaint for proper redressal.
The OP/Bank is contesting the case by filing a written version thereby denying and disputing all the material averments mentioned in the petition of complaint contending inter alia that whatever action taken on behalf of the Bank in releasing the amount was as per the request of the complainant and also the freezing of the account of the complainant was in pursuance to the request of the investigating agency of the criminal case in which the complainant was designated to be an accused. There was no deficiency in service at the instance of the OP/Bank and that the petition of complaint having been filed on all false and fictitious grounds the same was liable to be dismissed.
According to the pleadings of the parties the following issues are framed for proper adjudication of the dispute.
1. Is the complaint case maintainable?
2. Is the OP/Bank deficient in service as claimed by the complainant?
3. Is the complainant entitled to the reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS All the issues are taken up together for consideration for the same of convenience.
At the time of hearing it is submitted by the Ld. Advocate for the complainant that the present case is a glaring example of highhanded action on the part of the OP/Bank in releasing the hefty amount from the accounts of the complainant in favour of a third party without observing the formalities, which is required for the purpose of such transaction.
According to the Ld. Advocate for the complainant, while in the police custody the complainant was compelled to write the so-called letter of request thereby requesting the OP/bank to release Rs. 5,00,000/- in favour of one Ramal Sircar, who is not at all acquainted with the complainant. According to the Ld. Advocate, had the Bank been a bit vigilant and observed the required formalities, which is essential in connection with the similar transactions, the money would not have been unnecessarily siphoned off from the accounts of the complainant. The acts and omissions on the part of the Bank in this regard clearly indicate a glaring example of negligence and deficiency in service and from the materials on record it has become quite evident that there was no tangible reason under which circumstances the good and honest money of the complainant was siphoned off from his account held with the OP/Bank without any rhyme and reason.
The complainant having been able to substantiate his case by adducing cogent and reliable evidence the complaint case should be allowed and the reliefs so claimed by the complainant should be granted by this Commission.
We have duly considered the submissions so put forward on behalf of the complainant and have also gone through the materials on record and find that in this case the complainant has come forward with a case to the effect that the complainant being a bonafide customer of the OP/Bank was enjoying fixed deposit facilities as well as the savings bank account facilities and the complainant being engaged in share transaction business was made an accused in a criminal case involving his share transaction business and during the police custody in connection with the aforesaid case the complainant was compelled to write a letter of request to the Bank thereby releasing Rs. 5,00,000/- in favour of a third party, who, according to the complainant, was never known to the complainant. According to the complainant, the Bank without observing the banking rules and regulations has released the money in favour of a third party to the detriment of interest of the complainant and such acts on the part of the Bank tantamount to deficiency in service and hence, the petition of complaint. The OP/Bank, on the other hand, has put forward a case to the effect that the complainant was in police custody and that the letter of request was received by the Bank through investigating agency of the said police case and the money was released as per written information of the complainant himself.
As there was no deficiency in service at the instance of the Bank, the petition of complaint was liable to be dismissed.
On perusal of the materials on record we find that there is no denial of the fact that the complainant himself wrote a letter of request to the Bank for release of the amount in question in favour of a third party. Now, subsequently, the complainant is claiming to have written the letter under compulsion while in the police custody in connection with a criminal case and that the Bank without observing the banking formalities and rules and regulations has released the money in favour of a third party, who was never known to the complainant. In our opinion, the allegation which is coming forward from the side of the complainant, is purely a different nature of dispute which is not to be adjudicated through the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. From the facts and circumstances of the present case it reveals that the subject matter of the case does not come under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act and the complainant, if is aggrieved in any way, may seek relief before an appropriate forum and not by filing a Consumer Complaint of the present nature. Having considered the present matter in the light of above discussions we find no merit in the present petition of complaint, which, in our opinion, should be dismissed. In the result, the petition of complaint fails. All the issues are accordingly disposed of.
Hence, it is ORDERED that the petition of complaint stands dismissed on contest but without any order as to costs.
MEMBER MEMBER