B.RAMAKRISHNAN Vs. HDFC BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. B. Ramakrishna, the complainant has approached this Commission against the order of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, (in short, 'State Commission') Tamil Nadu who dismissed the FA/531/2007 filed by the complainant for enhancement of compensation.

(2.) Brief facts in this case, are: The complainant was an Savings Bank account holder of HDFC Bank at Silvasa, Gujarat State and later on he shifted to Salem. He gave a letter to OP in second week of February 2004, to transfer his Savings Bank Accounts and LAS (Current Account) to Salem. The Opposite Party transferred the 2 Savings Bank Accounts, within a week. Regarding the LAS Account, the Opposite Party insisted on signing a new contract. But due to inadequate stamp papers, the Opposite Party did not carry out the same. The Complainant arranged to transfer his holdings to HDFC Bank. In the meantime, shares of some companies have been sold from his account. The Complainant's LAS account was frozen. The Opposite Party insisted that the Complainant should sign a new agreement. Aggrieved by the conduct of OP, who failed to transfer the LAS Account, and sold certain shares of company, without the consent of the Complainant, alleging the negligence and deficiency in service by the OP, the Complainant filed a complaint seeking direction from the District forum against the OP to transfer his LAS Account, to refund Rs.2.55 lakhs for monetary loss and Rs.1 lakh towards compensation and costs in the sum of Rs.2,000/-.

(3.) The OPs resisted the liability. The OP submitted that the Complainant approached the OP for an overdraft facility by depositing securities, as collateral security. As per the term in the agreement, Clause 12(ii) the OP disposed of the securities.