IMPORTANT POINT
Consumer protection Act, 1986 is a social legislation to provide economic justice and to protect consumer from exploitation.

Vinay Kumar, Member—Consumer Complaint No.123 of 2012 is filed by M/s. Sapient Corporation Employees Provident Fund Trust (hereinafter referred to as the Complainant), against the HDFC bank Ltd. The Complainant has also impleaded two Managers of the Bank as OPs 2 and 3. According to the Complainant, the short point for consideration is whether the OP-Bank has committed any deficiency of service in terms of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, by debiting the account of the Complainant. It is alleged that the demand of recovery was against the Sapient Corporation not against the Complainant i.e. Sapient Corporation Employees Provident Fund Trust, which is a separate legal entity.

2. Brief facts of the case, as per the Complaint petition, are—

“that on 21.08.2010 Opposite Party No.1, through O.P. No.2, informed the officials of the Company and followed it up by an email to the Company, informing that they are in receipt of an order/notice dated 20.08.2010 from the Employee Provident Fund Organization (EPFO) for the recovery of Rs.1,47,52,766/- (Rupees One Crore Forty Seven Lac Fifty Two Thousand Seven Hundred Sixty Six only) against the Company and for prohibiting from making any payments out of the amount lying in the credit of M/s. Sapient Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (Company). It was further informed that they had put on hold on the account of the complainant to the tune of said amount and if the company wishes to make the account operational, then it should bring the stay order by 12:00 noon of 23.08.2010.”

3. Allegedly, the OPs were advised that no debit should be made to the account of the trust since it was a different entity under the law from the Company. The officials of the Company sent a reply e-mail to the OP-Bank in this behalf. However, on 25.8.2010 the OPs informed the Company that they have already issued a demand draft on 23.8.2010 in compliance with the notice of the Employees Provident Fund Organization dated 20.8.2010.

4. It is alleged that the OPs have acted with wilful negligence in wrongly paying out an amount of Rs.1,47,52,766/- (Rupees One Crore forty seven lakh fifty two thousand seven hundred sixty six only), without any authority or mandate, from the account of the Complainant and are therefore guilty of deficiency in service and hence are liable to refund the said amount along with interest and damages together with legal expenses and costs of this complaint. Accordingly, the Complaint Petition seeks the following reliefs:-

“a. ORIGINAL AMOUNT Rs. 1,47,52,766 (Rupees One Crore forty seven lakh fifty two thousand seven hundred sixty six only).

b. INTEREST @ 36% per annum from the date of debiting the account of the complainant i.e. 23.08.2010 till the date of realisation.

c. DAMAGES on account of deficiency in service causing harassment misery, hardships and agony etc. being Rs.50,00,000 (Rupees Fifty Lac Only).

d. LEGAL Expenses incurred by the Complainant, computed at Rs.1,10,000/- (Rupees One Lac ten thousand only.)”

5. We have perused the records and heard the counsels for the two parties. A perusal of the records as submitted by the Complainant and the facts as stated in the Complaint Petition shows that the Bank had received order no.HR/GGN/COMP-I/26147/5466 dated 20.08.2010 from the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Gurgaon. It clearly mentioned the account no. as C/A- 00031110000846 which is the number of the account held by the complainant Trust with the OP Bank directed the Bank to pay a sum of Rs.14752766/- (Rupees one Crore forty seven lakhs fifty two thousand seven hundred and sixty six) only to the credit of the regional Provident Fund Commissioner through a demand draft. The order also directed the Bank as follows:-

“It may further be noted that no payments out of future receipts in the account /accounts or any interest accuring or becoming payable in the accounts or Fixed Deposit Receipts of the defaulting establishments may be made in favour of anybody t