Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(NCDRC) 1286
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
FIRST APPEAL NO. 587 OF 2022
(Against the Order dated 14/03/2022 in Complaint No. 87/2014 of the State Commission Tamil Nadu)
1. CHAIRMAN, HDFC BANK LIMITED & ORS.
HDFC BANK HOUSE, SENAPATI BAPAT MARG, LOWER PAREL WEST,
MUMBAI-400013
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. M. JAI KUMAR
S/O. R. MURUGESAN, NO. 189E, YADAVAL STREET, ADAMBAKKAM,
CHENNAI-88
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
 
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM SURAT RAM MAURYA,PRESIDING MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. BHARATKUMAR PANDYA,MEMBER
FOR THE APPELLANT :
MS. VASUDHA ARORA, ADVOCATE
FOR THE RESPONDENT :
MR. SATYAM SONDH, ADVOCATE
Dated : 03 September 2024
For the Petitioner: M/S. RRJ ASSOCIATES
For the Respondent:
Key Points: - The State Commission held that the bank failed to supply details of credit card transactions and kept the saving account on "Hold on Funds," which amounted to deficiency in service. (!) - The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dismissed the appeal and upheld the State Commission’s finding, concluding there was deficiency in service and that the appeal had no merit. (!) (!) - The original complaint sought compensation for mental agony, harassment, and other relief, including specific amounts and costs; the appellate court considered and rejected the appeal against the State Commission’s partial relief. (!) (!) - The complainant's saving account was kept on hold and funds were transferred to credit card account, leading to bounced cheque for car loan instalment. (!) (!) - The bank argued there was no deficiency in service and that all actions were in accordance with procedure, including holding funds under Section 171 of the Contract Act, 1872. (!) - The appellate decision states the appellants’ arguments about having provided statements and notices, but the State Commission’s conclusion of deficiency was not illegal. (!) - The order of the Tamil Nadu State Commission dated 14.03.2022 partly allowed the complaint and directed payment of compensation and costs to the respondent, which the appeal sought to challenge. (!) (!) - The appellate court ultimately dismissed the appeal. (!)
How to determine whether a bank’s failure to supply transaction details constitutes deficiency in service?
What is the outcome when an appellate court upholds a State Commission’s finding of deficiency in service?
What are the rights and remedies for a consumer when an opposite party refuses to provide requested banking transaction details?
ORDER
1. Heard Ms. Vasudha Arora, Advocate, for the appellants and Mr. Satyam Sondh, Advocate, for the respondent.
2. HDFC Bank (the opposite parties) have filed above appeal from the order of Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai dated 14.03.2022 passed in CC/87/2014 partly allowing the complaint and directing the appellants to (i) pay Rs.50000/- as compensation, for mental agony and harassment and Rs.5000/- as litigation costs to the respondent within one month, failing which, the amounts would carry interest @6% p.a..
3. Jai Kumar (the respondent) filed in CC/87/2014 for directing the appellants to (i) pay Rs.2500000/- as compensation, for mental agony and harassment; (ii) pay Rs.19141.37, transferred from his saving account to credit card account; (iii) not to charge any amount due to cheque bounce for 18th EMI of Car Loan Account No.22953084; (iv) pay Rs.5000/- as litigation cost; and (v) any other relief, deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. The respondent stated that he had Saving Bank Account No.18581930001843, with HDFC Bank, Adambakkam Branch (OP-5), who issued Credit Card bearing No.5242160000365949 (Titanium Edge Card) with limit of Rs.30000/- on 30.06.2012. For operating Credit Card, his mobile No.9566246694 was registered. The complainant used to transfer money for use of Credit Card through net banking as and when he used to receive message from the bank about ‘minimum due amount’. The complainant availed car loan of Rs.377488/- on 05.12.2012 from the branch of HDFC Bank (OP-4), for which, Loan Account No.22953084 was opened. The loan was payable in 60 monthly instalments of Rs.8177/-. The staff of HDFC Bank called the complainant through landline No.4461040100 on his mobile No.9566246694 to deposit some amount for use of credit card. The complainant requested to send a message on his mobile about ‘minimum due amount’ immediately. However, instead of sending message about ‘minimum due amount’, the staff of HDFC called the complainant again and again from different numbers i.e. 4461040200, 4461003150 and 4461003450, asking to deposit Rs.34259.08 for credit card. The complainant then wrote a letter dated 14.04.2014 to OP-2 and 3, requesting them to supply the details of (i) the total amount spent by him on Credit Card No.5242160000365949; (ii) total amount paid by him on the said credit card; and (iii) total amount with detail of principal and interest, debited by the Bank in the account of the said credit card. As EMI of the car loan was payable on 5th of May, the complainant deposited Rs.5000/- on 03.05.2014 and his client transferred Rs.10000/- on 05.05.2014 in his Saving Bank Account No.18581930001843 (total balance was Rs.19127.32). Instead of supplying required information, OP-3, vide notice dated 02.05.2014 (dispatched on 05.05.2014 and received on 06.05.2014) kept on “Hold on Funds” his Saving Bank Account No.18581930001843 due to not paying the demanded amount of Rs.34259.08 of in credit card. The complainant gave a legal notice dated 08.05.2014 to OP-2, 3 and 5 to release his saving account, stating that instead of supplying the information as required in the letter dated 14.04.2014, his saving account has been kept on “Hold on Funds” and without prejudice to his right, he deposited Rs.4259/- towards overdue of credit card. The complainant contacted the officials of the bank on telephone on 09.05.2014 and asked them to release his saving account, then he was again informed that without depositing entire amount of Rs.34259.08, the account would not be released. The complainant then again deposited Rs.4500/- and Rs.1500/- in his credit card and through letter dated 13.05.2014, again requested to release his saving account. In spite of service of the letters, his account was not released. The OPs transferred total amount of Rs.19141.37 from the saving account to credit card on 17.05.2014. The complainant received a letter dated 23.05.20
