Skip to main content

HDFC Bank to pay Rs 40K for deficiency and hostile attitude

A consumer forum has directed HDFC Bank to pay Rs 40,000 to a man for not resolving properly his problem relating to issuance of an illegal bill of his credit card. New Delhi Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, presided by C K Chaturvedi, asked the bank to pay the compensation amount of Rs 40,000 to Delhi resident Radhey Shyam Sharma for its "deficiency and hostile attitude" towards the consumer, saying that the bill issued against him was "illegal".

"After considering and receiving the envelope received by complainant (Sharma), we hold that complainant suffered due to some insider in the bank, and complainant cannot be fastened with liability for use of card, without telling him PIN. "Holding Opposite Party (bank) guilty of not resolving the issue in proper way, we hold the bill issued against the complainant as illegal and award a compensation of Rs 40,000 to the complainant inclusive of litigation expenses for the deficiency and hostile attitude to consumer," the forum, also comprising its members S R Chaudhary and Ritu Garodia, said. Sharma had told the forum that he had applied for a credit card in HDFC Bank and after its issuance, he later on received an envelope with nil PIN.

On opening the envelope, he found that the place where PIN should have been mentioned was blank, he said. In the meantime, he received a demand of Rs 7,500 as cash withdrawal made by the credit card from November 2, 2005 to November 5, 2005, while he had received the envelope of secret PIN on November 12, 2005, he claimed. He said the bank, instead of addressing his concern, did not pay any heed and stuck to its point that Sharma must have used it. Aggrieved with the bank's response, he file a complaint.

He said on April 13, 2012, a bank official agreed for settlement of Rs 18,000, but the bank retracted later on, saying the employee was not authorised to carry out the settlement. At this, the forum said, "Even if it was so, the proper course was to take approval internally from the competent officer in the bank, in the facts and circumstances of the case. But it has acted in reverse way to continue the case. This is sheer harassment."

 Article referred: http://www.dnaindia.com/money/report-hdfc-bank-to-pay-rs-40k-for-deficiency-and-hostile-attitude-2008750

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more