STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND DEHRADUN Date of Admission: 26.06.2024 Date of Final Hearing: 25.04.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 05.05.2025 SC/5/A/13/2024

1. Branch Manager, HDFC Bank Ltd.

Ground Floor, Gandhi Chowk Ranikhet, District Almora

2. Manager, HDFC Bank Ltd.

Sabros Building, 110, Nelson Manickam Road Aminjikarai, Chennai

3. Customer Service Officer, Credit Card Team HDFC Bank Ltd., HDFC Bank House Senapati Bagpath Marg, Lower Parel (West)

Mumbai – 400018 Appellants through Authorised Signatory Sh. Jitendra Singh Rawat S/o Sh. Veer Singh Rawat Aged 35 years’, Legal Manager, HDFC Bank Ltd., Dehradun (Through: Sh. Nitin Kumar, Advocate)

…… Appellants Versus Sh. Vikram Singh S/o Sh. Govind Singh R/o Village Malli Reuni, Post Office Majkhali Tehsil Ranikhet, Almora (Through: Sh. Saurabh Rana, Advocate)

…… Respondent Coram:

Ms. Kumkum Rani, President Mr. B.S. Manral, Member

ORDER

(Per: Ms. Kumkum Rani, President):

This appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 has been directed against the impugned judgment and order dated

24.04.2024 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Almora (hereinafter to be referred as “The District Commission”) in consumer complaint No. 94 of 2022, styled as Sh. Vikram Singh Vs. Branch Manager, HDFC Bank Ltd. and others, wherein and whereby the consumer complaint was allowed, directing the appellants / opposite parties to pay to respondent / complainant interest @12% p.a. on Rs. 22,172.65/- from the date of debit of the said amount from the account of the complainant till payment. The appellant No. 2 was also directed to remove / delete the hold / lien shown in the bank account and PAN card of the complainant and the CIBIL report of the complainant be accordingly corrected. This apart, the appellant No. 2 was also directed to pay Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant towards mental agony on account of deficiency in service on their part as well as Rs. 10,000/- towards litigation expenses. The District Commission has also imposed penalty of Rs. 50,000/- upon the appellants for adopting unfair trade practice, which was directed to be deposited in the office of the District Commission.

2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, in brief, are, as such that the respondent / complainant filed consumer complaint before the District Commission regarding debit of amount by the appellant No. 1 – bank from his Savings Bank Account maintained with appellant No. 1 towards recovery of credit card dues. In July, 2020, the complainant visited State Bank of India, Majkhali for availing loan, then he came to know that a credit card of the bank with outstanding dues of Rs. 22,172.65/- was reflecting in his CIBIL records. Thereafter, the complainant had filed a complaint through online portal / website of the bank, however, the issue was not resolved. In August, 2021, the complainant opened a Savings Bank Account with appellant No. 1 and in September, 2021, the complainant received lien notice from the bank towards recovery of credit card dues from the complainant’s Savings Bank Account. The complainant lodged complaint with the bank, stating that the credit card does not belong to him, as he never availed any credit card from the bank. The complainant has further alleged that the bank did not take appropriate action on his complaint and alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellants, consumer complaint was submitted by the complainant, claiming refund of Rs. 22,172.65/- along with claim of damages for goodwill loss; damages towards loss in business and compensation towards mental agony.

3. The appellants / opposite parties filed written statement before the District Commission and clarified that on receipt of complaint from the complainant post exercise of lien, the appellants replied to the complainant, requesting him to share his KYC documents with the appellants for verification purpose, however, the complainant did not co-operate with the requ