HDFC BANK Vs. RAHUL GAS AGENCY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HDFC Bank has filed the present revision petition for setting aside the interim order dated 18.9.2002 passed by District Forum, Hisar in Complaint Case No. 549 of 2002 filed by the complainant -Rahul Gas Agency.

(2.) SHORTLY stated the facts of the case are that Rahul Gas Agency through its proprietor Manju Taneja has opened trading account bearing No. 15525600000875 with the petitioner -Bank after agreeing to the terms and conditions mentioned in the account opening form. On 17.9.2002 the petitioner wrote a letter to the complainant stating therein that the Bank has found that the account which the complainant was having with them have been doing certain cash transactions due to which the Bank may not be in a position to service efficiently the said account. Accordingly, the complainant was asked to close the account immediately and in case, not later than on 19.9.2002. The complainant was further asked to surrender the unused cheque leaves and A.T.M./Debit Cards issued to the complainant. It was also mentioned in the letter that if the account was not closed by the complainant, as stated in the letter, they shall be constrained to close the account and remit the balance amount to the complainant through cheque. Aggrieved by this action of the petitioner, the complainant filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection (hereinafter referred as the Act) alleging that the opposite party No. 1 has threatened the complainant to close the bank account immediately without any fault committed by it. It was further pleaded that the Manager of the opposite party had been causing harassment to the complainant and has adopted non -cooperative attitude to the dealings of the complainant which has rendered it difficult to carry out any transaction with the Bank. Accordingly, it was prayed that the opposite parties be directed not to close the account of the complainant without any sufficient and genuine reason.

(3.) WE have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The learned Counsel representing the respondent had put in appearance in this case on 28.4.2003 but he did not appear on the date of arguments. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the order dated 18.9.2002 passed by District Forum is not only without jurisdiction but also not sustainable under the eyes of law being void ab -initio. He has further contended that while granting ex parte order necessary requirements of law have not been taken into consideration.