4 min readChandigarhJul 26, 2026 11:57 AM IST
Finding that a senior citizen reported a cyber fraud promptly, but was still “harassed”, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission of Chandigarh has directed HDFC Bank to release his frozen amount of Rs 2 lakh and pay him Rs 20,000 as compensation and litigation expenses.
The commission found the bank deficient in service for not releasing the money despite the complainant reporting the fraud, completing the required formalities, and repeatedly approaching the bank. The order was pronounced on June 9.
Passing the order, the Bench of Amrinder Singh Sidhu (President) and B M Sharma (Member) observed, “The continued retention of the complainant’s money without any explanation or resolution, despite repeated approaches made by him, amounts to deficiency in service”.
The order blamed HDFC Bank for “compelling” Balwinder Singh, who is a senior citizen, to make numerous visits to the bank and has caused “inconvenience, mental agony and harassment” to him.
Appearing through counsel Prabhpreet Singh and also in-person, complainant Balwinder Singh submitted that on April 3, 2024, he received a fraudulent phone call from unknown persons claiming that his son had been taken into custody after narcotic substances were allegedly recovered from him. According to the complaint, the callers even made him speak to a person impersonating his son.
Under threats that his son would face serious consequences, he was induced to transfer Rs 2 lakh to an HDFC Bank account belonging to one Mihar Kumar Gupta, the complaint said. After speaking to his son, he realised he had been cheated.
Balwinder Singh claimed that he immediately approached the bank branch and succeeded in getting the transferred amount frozen. He also lodged a DDR with Chandigarh Police and supplied its copy to the bank.
Story continues below this ad
However, despite repeated requests and written representations seeking release of the frozen amount, the bank failed to return the money, prompting him to approach the consumer panel alleging deficiency in service.
HDFC Bank’s Sector 22 branch did not appear before the commission despite being served a notice and so the case proceeded against them ex-parte vide an order dated September 11, 2025.
The commission noted that despite service of notice — the Opposite Party (OP) — HDFC Bank did not appear in the proceedings and was proceeded against ex parte.
“This act of the OP draws an adverse inference against it. The non-appearance of the OP shows that it has nothing to say in its defence against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions of the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted,” the panel observed.
Story continues below this ad
The consumer commission further recorded in its order that there is no material on record to show that the complainant was informed of any legal impediment, restraint order or any other valid reason preventing the release of the amount in question.
“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 OP to take a reasoned decision regarding his request and communicate the same to him within a reasonable period,” the panel held.
“The continued retention of the complainant’s money without any explanation or resolution, despite repeated approaches made by him, amounts to 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.”
Allowing the complaint partly, the commission directed HDFC Bank to release and credit the frozen amount of Rs 2 lakh to the complainant’s account and pay a lump sum compensation of Rs 20,000 as harassment and litigation expenses.
Stay updated with the latest – Click here to follow us on Instagram
