BEFORE THE GOA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PANAJI-GOA In the matter in Consumer Complaint 01 of 2021.

Before: Shri Dhananjay A. Jog, President (officiating)

Dr. Nagesh S. Colvalkar, Member Adv. Ms. Rachna Anna Maria Gonsalves, Member Miss. Karen June Barreto, Daughter of late Mr. Willie Paul, Aged 37 years, unmarried, Indian National and, Resident of Mediterreanea, E-705, Case Rio, Palava City, Kalyan shil Road, 421204. ..…Complainant V.

HDFC Bank Ltd., Candolim Branch, Blue Sea Building, 1st floor, Opp. Canara Bank, Candolim, Bardez, Goa 403515. .....Opposite Party Adv. Shri. R. Kamat holding for Adv. Shri. G. Kudchadkar present for Complainant.

Adv. Adv. Shri. Tushar Naik present for Opposite Party.

Both parties state that they do not wish to argue orally and that their Written Arguments to be considered.

DATE: 18/11/2022 JUGDMENT [per Adv. Ms. Rachna Anna Maria Gonsalves, Member]

1. This Judgment and Order shall decide on Complaint dated

05/01/2021 against Opposite Party- HDFC Bank Ltd.

2. Both parties state that they do not wish to argue orally and that their Written Arguments to be considered.

3. The Complainant is filed under section 47 of the Consumer Protection Act-2019.

4. The brief facts of the case are as under:

i. That the Complainant submits that Opposite Party is involved in providing facilities related to Banking and financing and offers services amongst other having its branch at Candolim-Goa.

ii. That Complainant submits that she has approximately 11 accounts with the Opposite Party at their said branch as confirmed by Opposite Party vide their letter dated 01/02/2020 and that the total amount is Rs.1,91,97,747.90/-.

iii. That the Complainant further submits that the Opposite Party informed Complainant vide their said letter dated 01/02/2020, that they Marked “No debit/Hold” on the accounts mentioned in paragraph-3 of the Complaint in response to notice no. ITBA/COM/F/17/2019- 20/1024454283(1) dated 30/01/2020 of attachment under section 226(3) of Income Tax act 1961 for the PAN No. AHMPB6299F of the Complainant and that the Opposite Party further requested to provide revocation/stay order from competent court of Law withdrawing the said Notice under section 226 (3).

iv. The Complainant further submits that 01/02/2020 was a Saturday and the proceeding day being Sunday 02/02/2020, and Income Tax Department was closed, which according to the Complainant no action could be initiated.

v. The Complainant submits that on the 03/02/2020, being the first working day after receipt of notice and took swift action and obtained Release Order No. ITBA /Com/F/2019-20/1024577930(1) dated 03/02/2020 which was issued by Rijula Uniyal Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Panaji, Goa who was the same officer who had issued notice under section 226(3) and thereby releasing the attachment of Bank Account made to the accounts of the Complainant.

vi. The Complainant submits that the aforesaid release Order dated 03/02/2020 was filed with the Opposite Party at 2.00p.m. on the very same day and that the receipt was acknowledged by Opposite Party on 03/02/2020 by affixing its stamp but also the Branch Head of Opposite Party - Mr. Anthony Rodrigues via email dated

04/02/2020 (IST3:57p.m.).

vii. The Complainant submits that the notice dated

30/01/2020 issued under section 226(3) had become void ab initio non-est and was legally revoked w.e.f. 03/02/2020 thus Opposite Party has no authority post 2.00 p.m. of 03/02/2020 to make any transactions from the accounts of the Complainant in pursuance to the aforesaid notice, without the Complainant’s consent, knowledge and authority.

viii. The Complainant further submits that the Opposite Party on 05/02/2022 issued six Demand Drafts in favour of the Deputy Commissioner, Income Tax, (Circle-1(1)-Panaji, amounting in all to Rs.1,06,27,740/- inspite of the withdrawal of the attachment and full knowledge of the same as on 03/02/2020.

ix. That the Complainant submits that the aforesaid six D