SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
J.M. Malik, Presiding Member, Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Member
Panna Lal Kankaria & Sons, Through
Its Proprietor-Nemi Chand Kankaria
(HUF), Through Its Karta Gyanchand
Kankaria —Complainant
versus
H.D.F.C. Bank Ltd., Through Its
Manager —Opp. Party
Consumer Case No.304 of 2001
Decided on 10.3.2015

Counsel for the Parties:
For the Complainant:Mr. J.M. Sharma, Sr. Advocate With Mr. Vibhor Verdhah, Advocate
For the Opp.Party:Mr. Rishab Raj Jain, Mr. Shariqui Hussain Advocates With Mr. Rajesh Gupta, Vice President, HDFC Bank Ltd.

IMPORTANT POINT
Case of complainant dismissed, nothing will debar complainant to approach civil court or appropriate court, as per law.

Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 17 & 21 — Jurisdiction — Banking Services — Deficiency in — complicated and intricate questions of forgery, misrepresentation and settlement of accounts — HELD — Civil nature dispute which requires elaborate evidence. [Para 16]

       Result: Complaint dismissed

       

ORDER

J.M. Malik, Presiding Member —This is one of the oldest cases filed in this Commission, on 25.09.2001, wherein the complainant has claimed a sum of Rs.1,10,00,000/- and interest thereon due to deficiency in banking services by HDFC Bank, Opposite Party (OP), which was earlier the Lord Krishna Bank, which again merged into Centurion Bank of Punjab Ltd., and thereafter the Centurion Bank got amalgamated into the present HDFC Bank, the OP.

2. The complainant is a Proprietory firm which transacts the business of trading in cotton, having its office at Beawar. The Proprietor of the firm, is Mr. Nemichand Kankaria, HUF, whose Karta is Gyan Chand Kankaria. At the relevant time, the complainant was dealing with a single concern, i.e., M/s. Assam Yarn Suppliers and its sister concern of Mumbai to whom the complainant used to supply cotton bales and used to receive payment against the supply through cheques payable at Mumbai. Sh. Pramod Kumar Jain and Sh. Ratanlal Jain were owners of Assam Yarn Suppliers, Mumbai. At their instance, the complainant opened a current account with the then Lord Krishna Bank Ltd. The complainant made various deposits and withdrawals from the aforesaid current account in its ordinary course of business, in the year 1999. According to the complainant, the object of opening the account was to save the time for realisation of funds as the buyers were issuing cheques on Bank based in Mumbai.

3. The OP Bank issued two cheques on 15.03.1999 and 20.03.1999 to the representative of Assam Yarn Suppliers on authorisation. The complainant had authorised Mr. Pramod Kumar Jain of Assam Yarn Suppliers to operate the aforesaid current account also, vide letter dated 15.03.1999. Copy of letter dated 15.03.1999 and copy of the fax have been placed on record as Exs.1 & 2.

4. Sharp differences between the owners of M/s. Assam Yarn Suppliers, i.e. Sh. Pramod Kumar Jain and the complainant, cropped up in the month of September, 1999. The complainant instructed Sh.Pramod Kumar Jain not to operate the account of the complainant and also to return the remaining cheque book which was duly signed by the Karta of the complainant, Sh. Gyan Chand Kankaria. Sh. Pramod Kumar Jain replied that the cheque book was missing. On 15.09.1999, the complainant instructed the OP to stop transaction in the aforesaid current account in view of the loss of cheque book from Nos.01468 onwards. Copy of the said letter dated 15.09.1999 sent to the Bank has been annexed with the complaint as Ex.3. The Bank also provided copy of the statement up to 16.09.1999, copy of which has been placed on record as Ex.3A. The complainant thereafter, vide letter dated 30.09.1999 and fax message of even dated, wrote to the OP Bank for not allowing operation in the aforesaid current account and also about cancellation of authority of Sh. Pramod Kumar Jain, copies of which have been attached with the complaint as Exs.4 & 5.

5. However, the Bank most illegally, unauthorisedly and in clear cut connivance with Sh. Pramod Kumar Jain, allowed huge cash withdrawals in two days, i.e., on 28.09.1999 and 29.09.1999. The details of which have been given in the complaint, amounting to Rs.1,10,00,000/-, which is apparent by the copy of statement dated 12.10.1999, marked as Ex.6. The complainant wrote various letters to the Bank which are filed as Ex.7 (colly) but they did not bring the desired result. Sh.Gyan Chand Kankaria fell sick and he was taken to Chennai for his treatment by his brother, Mr. Narendra Kumar Kankaria, the Manager of the complainant company. They had to stay in Chennai from November, 1999 to September, 2000, vide Certificate marked as Ex.8. On return from Chennai, Gyan Chand Kankaria filed a criminal complaint against the conspirators in the aforesaid illegal withdrawal of funds from the said current account, at P.S. Beawar. Copy of the said FIR has been placed on record as Ex.9. The complainant has claimed interest @ 18% on the above said amount, i.e. Rs.1,10,00,0






















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top