The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, has directed HDFC Bank, Sector 22 B, Chandigarh, to pay compensation of Rs 20,000 to a senior citizen for not releasing the frozen amount without any explanation.
The Commission has also directed the bank to release the frozen amount of Rs 2,00,000 to the complainant’s account.
The Commission observed that the continued retention of the complainant’s money without any explanation or resolution, despite repeated approaches made by him, amounts to a deficiency in service.
Balwinder Singh, a 63-year-old resident of Banur, Mohali, Punjab, said that on April 03, 2024, he received a fraudulent phone call from unknown persons who falsely claimed that his son was in their custody after narcotic substances had allegedly been recovered from him. The miscreants further made him speak to a person impersonating his son, who mimicked his voice and manner of speaking.
Under threats that his son would face serious consequences, he was induced to transfer Rs 2,00,000 to the bank account of one Mihar Kumar Gupta. Acting under fear and distress, he transferred the amount through a bank branch at Banur.
Subsequently, upon speaking with his son, he discovered that the entire story was false and that he had been cheated. He immediately approached the bank branch situated at Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh, and succeeded in getting the transferred amount frozen. He also lodged a complaint with Police Station Sector-31, Chandigarh.
Thereafter, he repeatedly approached the bank authorities seeking the release of the frozen amount. Despite assurances from the bank on multiple occasions, the amount has not been released to him. The complainant also submitted written letters to the bank requesting the release of the frozen amount.
However, the bank authorities failed to take appropriate action. His account is maintained at the bank branch situated at Sector 22-B, Chandigarh. Although the amount was frozen through another branch in accordance with banking guidelines relating to fraudulent transactions, the bank has failed to facilitate its release through the concerned branch.
Alleging that the bank’s act amounts to a deficiency in service on its part, he filed a complaint with a prayer to direct the Bank to release the amount to the complainant’s account, compensation for mental agony and harassment, and costs of litigation expenses.
The Bank did not appear before this Commission despite service of notice; hence, it was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated September 11, 2025. After hearing the arguments, the Commission said that despite repeated requests and completion of requisite formalities, the amount has not been released to him.
It is not disputed that the amount originally belonged to the complainant and that the complainant had promptly reported the matter to the bank and the police authorities. Once the complainant had completed the formalities required by the bank, it was incumbent upon the bank (OP) to take a reasoned decision regarding his request and communicate the same to him within a reasonable period.
The Commission observed that “continued retention of the complainant’s money without any explanation or resolution, despite repeated approaches made by him, amounts to a deficiency in service.
The complainant, a senior citizen, has been compelled to make numerous visits to the bank and has suffered inconvenience, mental agony, and harassment on account of the inaction of the Bank." The Commission said that in view of this, the bank is directed to release and credit the frozen amount of Rs 2,00,000 to the account of the complainant and to pay compensation of Rs 20,000 to the complainant towards the harassment caused, as well as litigation expenses.
