Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 145
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Sh. Naresh Katyal, Sh. S.C. Kaushik, JJ
HDFC BANK LTD. – Appellant
Versus
ANUBHAV KALIA AND ANOTHER – Respondent
SC/6/A/276/2023
Mr. S.C. Thatai, Mr. Yuvraj Chander Kalia, Mr. Sunil Narang
The court ruled that the complainant's allegations of fraud and deficiency of service were unfounded, as he received refunds and the complaint was time-barred.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 5 of Limitation Act - Delay in filing appeals condoned - Legality of order by District Consumer Commission challenged - Complainant's parents had accounts with bank; insurer withdrew funds without consent - Allegations of fraud and deficiency of service - Appeals allowed, impugned order set aside. (Paras 1-19)
(B) Consumer Complaint - Time-barred claims - Complainant failed to explain delay; insurer provided evidence of policy issuance and delivery - No deficiency in service found. (Paras 4, 10, 15)
(C) Fraud and Cheating - Allegations dismissed; complainant received refunds from insurer, no financial liability on bank or insurer. (Paras 17, 18)
Facts of the case:
The complainant's parents had bank accounts with the bank, from which Rs.6,00,000/- was withdrawn by the insurer without their consent, leading to allegations of fraud.
Findings of Court:
The District Consumer Commission's order directing the refund was found to be illegal and perverse.
Issues: The main issues included the legitimacy of the withdrawal and the time-barred nature of the complaint.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found no evidence of fraud or deficiency of service, emphasizing that the complainant had received refunds and thus had no valid claim.
Result: Appeals allowed; complaint dismissed.
ORDER
NARESH KATYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
Delay of 15 days in filing of First Appeal No.763 of 2022 and delay of 114 days in filing of First Appeal No. 276 of 2023 stands condoned for reasons stated in application separately filed in both appeals and accompanying affidavit for seeking condonation of delay(s), which in opinion of this Commission constitutes ‘sufficient cause’ as per Section 5 of Limitation Act .
2. By this order; above mentioned two connected appeals are being disposed off.
In both appeals; legality of order dated 13.09.2022 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-Faridabad (In short “District Commission”) in complaint case No.274 of 2021, vide which complainant’s complaint has been allowed, has been questioned, separately.
3. Factual matrix: Parents of complainant were having their current accounts No. 06152020000793 and 06152560001311 with OP No.1-HDFC Bank. OP No.2/HDFC Life Ins. Co. Ltd./insurer withdrew Rs.6,00,000/- from their above bank accounts, during year-2017 to 2018. After coming to know about it; parents of complainant contacted OP No. 1/Bank, then they stated that OP No.2/insurer had issued insurance policy(s) in the name of their son i.e. complainant which surprised them, because neither complainant nor his parents had approached OP Nos. 1 & 2 to issue any insurance policy. Complainant was residing abroad at that time and he never received any insurance policy, nor was ever informed by OPs about it. OP No.2/insurer opened Life Insurance Policies without any KYC document. Complainant had neither given any online document. It was a ‘fraud’ committed by OPs Nos. 1 & 2, jointly and severally and also deficiency of their services, for which they were liable to be punished. It was surprising for complainant that as from where, OPs picked KYC documents without his consent or his parents’ consent. When complainant contacted OP No.2/insurer and asked them to clear its position on above facts, then they stated that they had issued letter dated 18.02.2020 stating therein that they have delivered documents to Anubhav Kalia-complainant, on 10.04.2017/11.04.2017. It was matter of surprise that on 10.04.2017 and 11.04.2017 complainant was not present in India. As per plea; how can it be possible that both letters were booked on 10.04.2017 in name of same person at same address, but same had been delivered on 10.04.2017 and 11.04.2017. It is pleaded that OP No. 1/Bank through its Manager Salabh Gupta had played fraud with him (complainant) on collusion with OPs and for which he reserves right to take criminal action against them. In spite of receipt of above said amount; OPs never issued receipt to him nor issued any certificate etc. till date. Complainant, as well as, his parents approached several times to OPs to supply details of amount, withdrawn from bank account, without their consent, but they always avoided on one pretext or other and never supplied details or certificate with regard to amount. Inter-alia on these pleas; complaint has been filed for directions to OPs to release Rs.6,00,000/- with interest @24% p.a. from date of due amount till realization; to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment and to pay Rs.3,31,000/- as litigation expenses.
4. OP No. 1/HDFC Bank (Appellant of F.A. No. 276 of 2023) in its defence has pleaded that complaint is time barred. Parents of complainant i.e. Sh. Yuraj Kalia and Mrs. Prem Kalia availed insurance policy in year-2017 and present complaint had been filed in year-2021. Complainant has not explained delay. Parents of complainant had filed Consumer Complaint No. 204 of 2020 titled: Prem Kalia Vs. HDFC Bank Limited & Ors and Consumer Complaint No. 205 of 2020 titled Yuvraj Chander Kalia Vs. HDFC Bank Limited & Ors on same cause of action which was/were withdrawn citing technical fault and learned District Consumer Commission vide order date 18.03.2021 granted liberty to parents of complainant to file fresh complaint
