Punjab National Bank

adminadmin Administrator
जिला मंच उपभोक्*ता संरक्षण,धौलपुर (राज0)
उपस्थिति- श्री देवचन्*द मीणा- अध्*यक्ष
श्री यदुनाथ शर्मा - सदस्*य
श्रीमती अलका यादव सदस्*य
प्रकरण क्रमॉक 10/2008

1- सुरेन्*द्र पाल सिंह
2- वीरेन्*द्रपाल सिंह
3- राजेन्*द्रपाल सिंह पिसरान स्*व0 श्री कुन्*दन सिंह अकवाम वघेला साकिनान मुहल्*ला
गडरपुरा धौलपुर
................. परिवादीगण
बनाम
1- प्रबंधक पंजाब नेशनल बैंक शाखा घण्*टाघर रोड नगरपालिका के पास धौलपुर
................. विपक्षीगण

परिवाद अधीन धारा 12उपभोक्*ता संरक्षण अधि0 1986
उपस्थिति अभिभाषक गण
1- पक्षकारान के प्रतिनिधि उपस्थित
आदेश
दिनॉक 19/03/2009
संक्षेप में प्रकरण के तथ्*य इस प्रकार है कि परिवादीगण के पिता स्*व0 श्री कुन्*दनलाल ने बैक में एक लाख रूपये 46 दिन केलिए एफ डी कराये जिसका भुगतान 18-2-94 को मय ब्*याज होना था लेकिन इस बीच उनके पिता का देहान्*त हो गया इसलिए उक्*त राशि को लेने केलिए बैंक में परिवादीगण गए लेकिन बैंक ने उत्*तराधिकार प्रमाण पत्र लाने के लिए कहा जो परिवादीगण ने विपक्षी शाखा में उत्*तराधिकार प्रमाण पत्र बनवाया जाकर पेश कर दिया लेकिन बैंक ने देने सेमना कर दिया अन्*त में परिवादीगण ने अपने हिस्*से की राशि ¼ ¼ दिलाने एवं हर्जा खर्चा दिलाने की मांग की ।
विपक्षी ने जवाव पेश कर जाहिर किया है कि परिवादीगण अपने हिस्*सेकी राशि को लेने के लिए बैंक गए लेकिन उत्*तराधिकार केमुताबिक चारों पुत्रों को ¼ ¼ राशि देने के लिए कहा गया है । बैंक में चारों पुत्र एक साथ लेने नहीं पहुचे और इनके भाई महेन्*द्रसिंह ने प्रार्थना पत्र पेश कर अलग अलग राशि लेने से मना किया इसलिए बैंक ने उक्*त परिवादीगण को राशि नहीं दी ।
दोनों पक्षों की बहस सुनी गई ।पत्रावली का अवलोकन किया गया । हमारी विनम्र राय में मत है कि परिवादीगण ने यदि सभी औपचारिकताऐं पूर्ण करदी हैं तो उनकी राशि उनको मिलना वाजिव है । अत: परिवादीगण का परिवाद स्*वीकार किया जाकर विपक्षी को आदेश दिया जाता है कि परिवादीगण को उनके हिस्*से की राशि ¼ ¼ का भुगतान कर दिया जावे । पक्षकार अपना अपना खर्चा स्*वयं बहन करेंगे ।


(देवचन्*द मीणा)
अध्*यक्ष
जिला मंच उपभोक्*ता संरक्षण
धौलपुर
आदेश आज दिनॉक 19/03/09 को लिखाया जाकर सुनाया गया ।



(यदुनाथ शर्मा ) (अलका यादव) (देवचन्*द मीणा)
सदस्*य सदस्*य अध्*यक्ष
जिला मंच उपभोक्*ता जिला मंच उपभोक्*ता जिला मंच उपभोक्*ता
संरक्षण धौलपुर संरक्षण,धौलपुर संरक्षण, धौलपुर
«13

Comments

  • adminadmin Administrator
    edited September 2009
    COMPLAINANT Sri.N.Shripathi,Aged 58 years,S/o Late Ramakrishna Bhat,C-250, Peenya Industrial Estate,Bangalore – 560058Advocate – Sri.N.Sukumar Jain

    V/s.

    OPPOSITE PARTY Punjab National Bank,No.15, 1st Cross, 1st Stage,Peenya Industrial Estate,Bangalore – 560 058.Rep. by itsChief ManagerAdvocate – Sri.H.C.Shivakumar


    O R D E R


    This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to pay a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- and for such other relief’s on an allegations of deficiency in service.

    The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under: Complainant issued a cheque for Rs.3,000/- on 05.08.2008 in favour of Bowring Institute, Bangalore. When the said cheque was presented it was dishonored with an endorsement of ‘Insufficient Funds’. As on the date of issuance of cheque and subsequently there to complainant had sufficient amount at his current account at OP, but still the said cheque was not cleared. It is all because of the carelessness and negligence on the part of the OP. Due to the bouncing of the said cheque complainant is put to greater hardship, prejudice and mental agony that too for no fault of his. He immediately contacted the OP to rectify the mistake but it went in vain. He caused legal notice on 11.09.2008 to OP again there was no response. Hence complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the reliefs accordingly.


    2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP the cheque is issued in the account of M/s.Metal Chem carrying on business at Peenya Industrial Estate. So the transaction is of commercial in nature. It is further contended that the Department of Commercial Tax freezed an amount of Rs.30,000/- in the account. So the balance available as on the date of presentation of the said cheque was only Rs.728-59. Hence the said cheque was returned and dishonored with an endorsement of ‘insufficient funds’. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. OP has not received any communication of withdrawal of the said restriction by CTO nor complainant brought the said fact to the notice of the OP with regard to the lift of the said lien by the Commercial Tax Department. The other allegations made in the complaint are baseless. Complaint is devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.


    3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard.


    4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under: Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has Proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP? Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the relief’s now claimed? Point No. 3 :- To what Order?


    5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on: Point No.1:- In Affirmative Point No.2:- Affirmative in part Point No.3:- As per final Order.

    R E A S O N S


    6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant has got the current account at OP and issued one cheque in favour of Bowring Institute, Bangalore on 05.08.2008 for Rs.3,000/-. It is contended by the complainant that though he had sufficient amount at his current account, OP dishonored the said cheque on the ground of ‘insufficient funds’. Due to the dishonor of the said cheque complainant suffered both mental agony and financial loss and loss of reputation in the society and the community. It is all because of negligence on the part of the OP. When his repeated requests and demands made to OP to rectify the said mistake went in futile he even got issued legal notice on 11.09.2008. Copy of the legal notice is produced. Again there was no response.



    7. As against this it is contended by the OP that the present transaction is a commercial transaction. We don’t find force in the said defence. It is further contended by the OP that there was a lien created by Department of Commercial Tax to the tune of Rs.30,000/- with respect to the said account of the complainant and after deduction of the said lien balance available was only Rs.728-59. Hence the said cheque was dishonored with an endorsement ‘insufficient funds’. As such there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.


    8. We have gone through the documents produced by the complainant. Of course it is not at dispute that the said lien is created on 05.06.2008 for a total sum of Rs.28,863/-. The Commercial Tax Department addressed the letter to the OP on 27.06.2008 withdrawing the said lien. It is received by the OP. Under such circumstances OP can’t take the defence that the withdrawal of the said lien was not brought to their notice either by complainant or by the Commercial Tax Department. This kind of the defence set out by the OP itself amounts to deficiency in service.

    9. We have also gone through the Bank statement and this disputed cheque issued on 05.08.2008 and the lien is withdrawn on 27.06.2008 itself. On 05.08.2008 at the complainants account a lump sum amount is at balance so as to honor cheque for Rs.3,000/-. So the contention of the OP that cheque was dishonored because of insufficient funds on the face of it appears to be baseless.


    10. The evidence of the complainant which finds full corroboration with the contents of the undisputed documents appears to be very much natural, cogent and consistent. There is nothing to discard the sworn testimony of the complainant. As against this unimpeachable evidence of the complainant the defence set out by the OP appears to be defence for defence sake just to shirk the responsibility and obligation. There is a proof of carelessness and negligence on the part of the OP. The arbitrary act of the OP in dishonoring the said cheque though sufficient amount is available at the account of the complainant amounts to deficiency in service.


    11. Of course complainant has claimed a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-, there is no basis for the said huge claim. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case justice will be met by directing the OP to pay a compensation of Rs.5,000/- with a litigation cost of Rs.500/-. With these reasons we answer point Nos.1 & 2 accordingly and proceed to pass the following:


    O R D E R


    The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.5,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.500/-. This order is to be complied with in four weeks from the date of its communication.
  • adminadmin Administrator
    edited September 2009
    Sh. Badri Ram son of Sh. Dass Ram, resident of village Balh PO Dal Tehsil Dharamshala, District Kangra (HP)
    Complainant
    Versus

    1. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office Piner Hotel Palampur, Tehsil Palampur, District Kangra (HP) through its Branch Manager

    2. The Punjab national bank Branch TCV (Dal) Tehsil Dharamshala, District Kangra (HP) through its Branch Manager


    ORDER
    A.S.JASWAL, PRESIDENT. (ORAL)

    In nut-shell the case of the complainant is that he had purchased two mules (hereinafter referred to as animal) by taking loan from the opposite party No.2 and that both the animals were insured with opposite party No.1 for the period 27.6.2006 to 26.6.2007. It is asserted that one mule bearing tag No.0710, during the insurance Policy, had died and the complainant after completing necessary formalities submitted his claim before the Insurance Company, but it has repudiated his claim in illegal manner and thereby committed deficiency in service.

    2. The claim of the complainant has been resisted and contested by the opposite party by asserting that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company. The opposite party no.1 has denied its liability on the ground that the colour of the deceased animal was found different from the insured animal as such, the claim of the complainant was not found to be genuine one and the same was legally rejected.


    3. The opposite party No.2 also filed its reply pleading therein that the answering opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service as the claim forms of the complainant were submitted to the opposite party No.1 at the earliest possible. The other averments have been denied in toto.


    4. Both the parties adduced evidence by way of affidavits and annexures in support of their contentions. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the following points arise for determination:-
    1. Whether the OPs committed deficiency in service, as alleged?
    2. Final order

    5. For the reasons to be recorded hereinafter while discussing points for determination, our findings on the aforesaid points are as under:-
    Point no.1: Partly in affirmative
    Point No.2 No
    Relief The complaint is partly allowed as per operative part of the order

    REASONS FOR FINDINGS
    POINT NO.1

    6. The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the Insurance Company has committed deficiency in service. He has further argued that the complainant has given the copy of death certificate of the cow issued by the Veterinary Doctor and other documents, but the Insurance Company without application of mind rejected his genuine claim


    7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company has argued that the colour of the dead animal did not tally with the colour of the insured animal as the animal insured was black in colour and the animal that died was of brown colour and that the Insurance Company has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant. The learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 has argued that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.2


    7. To appreciate the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, the entire record available on the file was gone into in detail. From the record, it stands proved that the animal of the complainant bearing Ear Tag No.0710 was insured by the opposite party No.1 and during the subsistence of the Insurance Policy; that animal had died. There is no dispute regarding these facts and these facts are admitted facts of the present case.


    8. The only defence of the opposite party No.1 is that the colour of the dead animal does not tally with the insured animal. The opposite party No.1 has placed on record photo copy of post mortem report issued by the Veterinary Doctor Annexure OP1-6. In his post mortem report, he has mentioned that animal bearing Tag No.0710 having blackish brown colour had died. We are of the view that since the opposite party is providing public utility services, it cannot deny the genuine claim of the complainant on technical grounds. We are of the view that the opposite party No.1 without applying its mind to the facts and circumstances of the case had wrongly repudiated the genuine claim of the complainant and this is nothing but great deficiency in service.


    9. There is no evidence on record adduced by the complainant to prove that the opposite party No.2 has committed any deficiency in service.


    10. Now, how this deficiency can be cured? We are of the view that the ends of justice will be met in case the opposite party No.1 is directed to pay the insured amount to the complaint within 30 days after the receipt of copy of this order. Hence, point no.1 is answered partly in affirmative.

    8. No other point argued or urged
    Relief


    9. In view of our findings on point no.1 above, the complaint is partly allowed against opposite party No.1 and the same is dismissed against opposite party No.2. The opposite party No.1 is directed to pay the insured amount to the complainant within 30 days after the receipt of copy of this order failing which it will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of complaint till its realization. The opposite party No.1 is also directed to pay litigation costs to the tune of Rs.2000/-.
  • adminadmin Administrator
    edited September 2009
    Billo Devi wife of late Sh. Madho Ram, resident of village and PO Dobh, Tehsil Shahpur District Kangra (HP)
    Complainant
    Versus

    1. The Punjab National Bank Shahpur through its branch Manager, District Kangra (HP)

    2. The New India Insurance company, branch Office Dharamshala through its Branch Manager Dharamshala, District Kangra (HP)


    In nut-shell the case of the complainant is that he had purchased a buffalo by raising loan to the tune of Rs.10800/- from opposite party No.1 and that the same was got insured with the opposite party No.2. It is asserted that the said buffalo had died during the subsistence of the insurance Policy on dated 4.12.2005 and that after completing necessary formalities, she had submitted her claim before the opposite party No.2 through opposite party No.1, but it did not settle the same. Thus, the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service.

    2. The claim of the complainant has been resisted and contested by opposite party No.1 on the plea that on having received the information regarding the death of the buffalo of complainant, it had immediately informed the opposite party No.2.


    3. The opposite party No.2 vide its separate reply has asserted that there is no deficiency, in service, on its part as the complainant has failed to supply the ear tag of the buffalo despite various reminders written to her. Since, the complainant had not supplied the ear tag, it cannot be said the insured buffalo had died. Since, the complainant has failed to supply the ear tag of the buffalo; the opposite party has rightly filed the claim of the complainant as “No Tag No Claim.


    4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case carefully and minutely. This Forum on 20.2.2008 framed the following points for determination:-
    1. Whether the O.Ps committed deficiency in service as alleged? OPC
    2. Whether the complaint is not maintainable, as alleged? OPOPs
    2. Final order



    5. For the reasons to be recorded hereinafter while discussing points for determination, our findings on the aforesaid points are as under:-
    Point No.1: No
    Point no.2: Decided accordingly
    Final order: The complaint is dismissed as per operative part of the order
    REASONS FOR FINDINGS
    POINT No.1



    6. Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the opposite party No.2 has illegally filed the claim of the complainant as No Tag no Claim and thus, committed deficiency in service.


    7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 has argued that the complainant has not produced any cogent and convincing evidence to prove her case and that the opposite party No.2 has rightly filed her claim as No Tag No Claim after due application of mind. Learned counsel for the complainant No.1 has also argued that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency on the part of opposite party No.1.


    8. To appreciate the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, the entire record, available on the file, was gone into in detail. The complainant has filed her affidavit, Ex.CW1, in which she has re-counted the averments as made in the complaint.


    9. The case of the complainant is that her buffalo which was insured with opposite party No.2 had died on 4.12.2005, whereas the defence of the opposite party No.2 is that the complainant has failed to supply the ear tag of the buffalo despite various reminders written to her. No doubt, a buffalo of the complainant had died, but without any identification, it cannot be said that the insured buffalo of the complainant had died. The complainant has not placed on record any cogent and convincing evidence to prove her case except the photographs of the buffalo. On the contrary, the opposite party has filed affidavit of Shri Ravinder Negi, Divisional Manager, Ex.OPW1. In his affidavit, he has specifically deposed on oath, that one buffalo of the complainant had been insured with the opposite party No.2, whose tag number was 1483, but the complainant has not supplied the tag number of the buffalo which died nor it was mentioned in the livestock claim form. Thus, the opposite party No.2 is not aware whether the insured buffalo had died or some other buffalo. The evidence adduced by the opposite party No.2, remains un-rebutted on record. Thus, we have no hesitation in holding that the complainant has failed to connect the dead buffalo with the insured one. In the absence of cogent and convincing evidence, we are unable to hold that the insured buffalo had died. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the opposite party No.2 has rightly filed the claim of the complainant as No Tag No Claim after due application of mind. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, point No.1 is answered in negative.



    10. No other point argued or urged before us.


    Relief



    11. In view of our findings on point No1 above, the complaint is dismissed.
  • SidhantSidhant Moderator
    edited September 2009
    Shri Devinder Kishore Bansal S/O Shri Jai Kishore, R/O Chhota Chowk, Nahan, District Sirmour, H.P.

    Versus

    The Punjab National Bank, Nahan,

    District Sirmour, H.P.

    Through its Manager.


    Pritam Singh (District Judge) President:- This order shall dispose of complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The case of the complainant in brief is that he was holder of joint FDR bearing No.3101-1466050 with his brother Shri Upinder Kumar Bansal. That the FDR in question was to mature on 12.07.2005 and on its maturity, a sum of Rs.62,655/- was payable to the complainant. But, after its maturity, they could not receive the amount of maturity on 12.07.2005 and as such the FDR remained with the OP-Bank w.e.f. 12.07.2005 to 26.07.2006 and the OP-Bank did not pay interest on the aforesaid amount of Rs.62,655/- from 12.07.2005 to 26.07.2006. It is alleged that the OP-Bank by not giving interest on the aforesaid sum, not only indulged in an unfair trade practice, but also committed deficiency in service. Hence, feeling dissatisfied and aggrieved by the act of the OP-Bank, the complainant perforce filed this complaint against the OP-Bank.

    2. The complaint is resisted by OP-Bank who took preliminary objections regarding maintainability of the complaint. On merits, OP-Bank refuted the allegations of the complainant alleging that the maturity amount of Rs.62,665/- was paid to the depositor on 26.07.2006. The OP also stated that neither there is any provision nor any contract between the parties that after the maturity of the FDR, the bank is liable to pay interest for the period beyond the maturity date. Hence, there being no deficiency in service, the complaint is sought to be dismissed. Thereafter, the parties led oral and documentary evidence in support of their claim/counter claim.

    3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and also thoroughly scanned the entire record of the complaint.

    4. The case of the complainant is that despite his eligibility the OP-Bank did not give interest on the matured amount of FDR beyond the maturity date, i.e. from 12.07.2005 to 26.07.2006. Whereas, the case of the OP-Bank is that there was no contract between the parties after maturity period of FDR and as such the OP-Bank is not liable to pay interest for the period beyond the maturity date.

    5. But, it may be stated that the OP-Bank has not placed on record any material or documentary proof in support of their plea that the OP-Bank is not liable to pay interest on the FDR amount after the maturity date. Admittedly, the maturity amount of FDR amounting to Rs. 62,665/- was paid to the depositor on 26.07.2006 say after more than one year from maturity date thereby the maturity amount of FDR remained with the OP-Bank from 12.07.2005 to 25.07.2006 and normally FDR after maturity date are automatically extended for another period of one year unless specifically asked by FDR holder to extend FDR period for specific date. Hence, the OP-Bank is legally bound and liable to pay interest on the maturity amount of Rs.62,665/- for the period from 12.07.2005 to 25.07.2006 at the rate as permissible on FDR .

    6. Resultantly, we allow this complaint and direct the OP-Bank to pay interest for disputed period on the maturity amount of FDR of Rs.62, 665/- as was given by them on FDR earlier. The litigation cost is quantified at Rs.1,000/- payable by the OP-Bank to the complainant. This order shall be complied with by the OP-Bank within a period of forty five days after the date of receipt of copy of this order.
  • SidhantSidhant Moderator
    edited September 2009
    Sri.B.N.Sheshagiri Rao,

    S/o Late Narayana Rao,

    Hindu, Aged about 52 years,

    Residing at D.No.1-175,

    Sharada Nilaya, Hosabettu,

    Mangalore. …….. COMPLAINANT

    (Advocate: Sri D.Ishwara Bhat)

    VERSUS

    1. The Punjab National Bank,

    K.S. Rao Road,

    Mangalore,

    Represented by its Manager.

    2. The Deputy Commissioner,

    Dakshina Kannada,

    Mangalore. ……. OPPOSITE PARTIES


    The Complainant owned the vehicle of Maruthi Omni bearing Registration No.KA 19 M 2898. The said vehicle was seized by the Station House Officer of Panambur Police Station and booked the case and referred the matter to the 2nd Opposite Party i.e., Deputy Commissioner, D.K., Mangalore. In pursuance of that, the 2nd Opposite Party has initiated the proceedings and in the said proceedings the 2nd Opposite Party passed an order to release the vehicle with condition of furnishing bank guarantee/Indemnity Bond for Rs.40,000/-. Accordingly, the Complainant approached the 1st Opposite Party and on 2.9.2002 Indemnity Bond for Rs.40,000/- was executed and which was valid up to 1.9.2003.

    It is alleged that, the 1st Opposite Party after the expiry of the period of the Indemnity Bond, instead of renewing the same without consent of the Complainant Rs.40,000/- paid to the 2nd Opposite Party from the account of the Complainant. It is contended that the aforesaid act of the 1st Opposite Party is illegal and unauthorized as according to the Complainant and filed the above complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) seeking direction from this Hon'ble Forum to the Opposite Parties to pay Rs.40,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from 20.12.2004 till the date of payment and further Rs.10,000/- as compensation and cost of the proceedings.



    2. Version notice served to the Opposite Parties by RPAD. Opposite Party No.1 appeared in person and 2nd Opposite Party also appeared in person filed separate version.

    Opposite Party No.1 submits that as a banker has performed its duties as provided and acted prudently with the terms and conditions of Guarantee/Bond executed by this Opposite Party. Hence there is no question of deficiency and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

    The Opposite Party No.2 submitted that, the Complainant while releasing the vehicle in case No.COM.CR.9/01-02 executed a Guarantee/Indemnity Bond for Rs.40,000/. The Complainant executed Guarantee of Opposite Party No.1 under Guarantee No.10/2002 for Rs.40,000/-. The said Guarantee Bond suppose to be renewed every year. Since the Complainant failed to renew the bond, the Opposite Party No.2 seized the bank guarantee. It is submitted that, the above case is disposed off on 20th June 2005 thereafter the Complainant received the above said amount from this Opposite Party and contended that there is no deficiency and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

    3. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:

    (i) Whether the Complainant proves that the Opposite Parties committed deficiency in service?

    (ii) If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?

    (iii) What order?

    4. In support of the complaint, Sri.B.N.Sheshagiri Rao (CW1) filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint and answered the interrogatories served on him. Complainant produced four documents as listed in the annexure. One Sri.T.K.Sadashivan (RW1), Branch Manager of the 1st Opposite Party filed counter affidavit and answered the interrogatories served on him. The Complainant and Opposite Party No.1 filed notes of arguments.

    We have considered the notes/oral arguments submitted by the learned counsels and we have also considered the materials that was placed before the Hon'ble Forum and answer the points are as follows: Point No.(i): Negative.

    Point No.(ii) & (iii): As per final order.


    REASONS

    5. POINTS NO. (i) to (iii):

    In the present case it is undisputed fact that, the Complainant is the owner of the vehicle of Maruthi Omni bearing Registration No. KA 19 M 2898. The said vehicle was seized by the Station House Officer of Panambur Police and booked the case and referred the matter to the 2nd Opposite Party i.e., District Commissioner, Mangalore. In pursuance of that, the 2nd Opposite Party has initiated the proceeding as No.COM:CR/9/2001-02. In the said proceedings the 2nd Opposite Party passed an order to release the vehicle with condition of furnishing Indemnity Bond for Rs.40,000/-. On 2.9.2002 the Complainant executed a Indemnity Bond/bank guarantee for Rs.40,000/- and the said bond was valid up to 1.9.2003.

    It is contended by the Complainant that, after the expiry of the period of said Indemnity Bond, instead of renewing the same, without consent or permission from the Complainant the 1st Opposite Party has paid cash amount of Rs.40,000/- to the 2nd Opposite Party from the S.B. Account of the Complainant which amounts to deficiency.

    From the above admitted facts it is proved that the vehicle of the Complainant was involved in one of the crime cases and the same was seized by the Panambur police station and referred the matter to the 2nd Opposite Party and the 2nd Opposite Party has initiated the proceedings against the Complainant and other accused persons. During the pendancy of the above case, the Complainant filed an application before the District Commissioner for release of the vehicle. The 2nd Opposite Party released the vehicle with condition of furnishing Indemnity Bond for Rs.40,000/-. On 2.9.2002 undisputedly the Complainant executed bank guarantee through 1st Opposite Party for Rs.40,000/-.

    The said Indemnity Bond is valid upto 1.9.2003. It could be seen that, the Opposite Party herein is a banker has performed its duties as provided and acted prudently complying with the terms and conditions of guarantee/Indemnity Bond executed by them. The Complainant admittedly not renewed the guarantee bond issued in the above case. Since the Complainant was not renewed the Indemnity Bond for Rs.40,000/- as per the instructions of the 2nd Opposite Party the 1st Opposite Party paid the amount by pay order dated 20.12.2004 to the 2nd Opposite Party which is valid and not illegal and there is no deficiency on the part of the 1st Opposite Party.

    The Complainant instead of approaching this Hon’ble Forum ought to have filed an application before the 2nd Opposite Party after closure of the above case to receive the amount. It is further noted that the 2nd Opposite Party appeared before the Fora filed version and stated that Rs.40,000/- has been received by the Complainant. The same is not disputed by the Complainant. In view of the above, the question of paying Rs.40,000/- by the 1st Opposite Party does not arise.

    In view of the above discussions, we are of the considered opinion that there was no deficiency whatsoever on behalf of the Opposite Parties. Hence the complaint is dismissed.
  • adv.sumitadv.sumit Senior Member
    edited October 2009
    Jagan Nath (aged 61 years) son of Sh. Piare Lal, Ward No.5, house No.132, Samrala, Ludhiana.

    (Complainant)

    Vs.



    Punjab National bank, Branch Samrala, LIC Building Samrala, Distt. Ludhiana through Manager.

    (Opposite party)


    O R D E R


    1. Complainant after retirement started obtaining his pension from the opposite party through his saving bank passbook no.3466000100286954 qua his PPO no.5089. His grouse in this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is that had been withdrawing his pension from his that account regularly till September,2007. But thereafter opposite party refused to release his pension since October 2007 and did not credit intentionally monthly pension of Rs.1900/- to his account. Though they were under obligation to credit every month pension amount to his account. He being senior citizen was totally dependant upon his pension. Due to mal practice of the opposite party, served a legal notice dated 13.4.2007 on them. Because, they falsely alleged releasing illegal payment of Rs.26,931/- as pension arrears to him. Opposite party also wrongly charged Rs.100+35=35+35=Rs.205/- on 7.11.2007 and debited the same to his account. For such deficiency in service by opposite party, claimed compensation of Rs. 40,000/- for harassment with direction to opposite party to release his pension from 10/2007 onward without any break.

    2. Opposite party contested claim of the complainant by claiming his averments to be false and incorrect. However, having saving account with them and receipt of pension of Rs.1900/- per month in that account are admitted. But they claimed that complainant concealed material facts. Because, he had taken loan of Rs.26,000/- from them as per prevalent loan scheme for the pensioners. The loan was sanctioned subject to condition that the amount of pension would be payable only after adjusting withdrawal benefit amount already paid. Pension account of the complainant was maintained as per banking laws. There was no deficiency in service on their part. Complainant operated his account upto 4.10.2007. On 7.4.2007 applied for personal loan, agreed to repay the same in 35 equal monthly instalments and authorised bank to recover monthly instalments from his pension commencing from May,2007. The pension arrears were payable after adjusting withdrawal benefit amount already paid. The pension of the complainant was regularly credited to his account upto date. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on their part.

    3. Both the parties adduced their evidence by way of affidavits and documents in support of their respective contentions.

    4. We have heard the arguments addressed by the ld. counsel for the parties and have gone through the file, scanned the documents and other material on record.

    5. After going through the material placed on the record, the position which emerges is that the complainant is getting pension of Rs.1900/- per month and that pension was credited regularly by opposite party to his saving bank account, copy of which is Ex.C.1 and Ex.C.3. But on 22.8.2006 a sum of Rs.26,931/- as pension arrears was credited to his account. Out of it, complainant withdrew Rs.20,000/- on 22.8.2006, Rs.3000/- on 23.8.2006, Rs.1800/- on 25.8.2006 and Rs.1500/- on 29.8.2006. In the mean time, pension of Rs.1901/- on 23.8.2006 was also credited to his account. He as such on 29.8.2006 was having credit of Rs. 3538/-. But by mistake or error, opposite party again on 30.8.2006 credited a sum of Rs.26,931/- to account of the complainant showing a sum of Rs. 30,469/- in his account. Second credit of pension arrears amounting to Rs.26,931/- on 30.8.2006 by opposite party was just an error on their part. Because, this amount of pension arrears was already credited to his account on 22.8.2006.


    Out of that amount, he withdrew substantial amount from his account. As error was committed by crediting again on 30.8.2006 pension arrears of Rs.26,931/- to his account, opposite party entered into a loan agreement on application Ex.R.1 of the complainant. Complainant then vide letter Ex.R.4 dated 7.4.2007 agreed to repay the advanced amount of Rs.26,000/- in 24 equal monthly instalments. He vide letter of authority Ex.R.5 empowered opposite party to recover loan in monthly instalments commencing from May,2007 from his saving bank account, to which his pension was credited. Regarding such consent clause, complainant also executed documents Ex.R.6 and R8 with the opposite party. Under these documents, complainant had authorised opposite party to realize instalments of loan of Rs.26,000./- from his saving bank account, to which his pension was also credited.

    6. Probably, this arrangement was done by the opposite party as they inadvertently on two occasions had credited pension arrears of Rs.26,931/- to his account. To get the matter cleared, loan of Rs.26,000/- was shown made available to the complainant who consequently authorised opposite party to deduct loan instalments from his saving bank account. It was for such a reason that the complainant alleges that since Oct.2007, was not paid pension. Though statement of account Ex.R.11 shows that a sum of Rs.1901/- being amount of his pension has been regularly credited to his account by the opposite party from May,2006 till April 2008.

    7. In these circumstances, on behalf of opposite party complainant was accused suppressing intimation about taking loan and authorizing OP bank to realize the loan instalments from his account. Whereas on behalf of the complainant argued that they received debt amount by stopping the payment of his pension, for which opposite party would be guilty of not rendering proper services to its consumer.

    8. In the instant case, on account of bonafide mistake that pension arrears were credited twice to the account of the complainant and that credit wrongly given to the complainant remained as such. But complainant entered into an agreement showing taking loan of Rs.26,000/- from the opposite party and empowered them to realize that amount from his saving account, to which his pension was credited. This was mutual agreement between the parties.

    9. So, in the light of these aspects, we are of the view that opposite party in these circumstances can not be faulted of resorting to mal practice or not rendering proper services to its own consumers. Therefore, finding no merit in the complaint, same is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be completed and consigned to record.
  • adv.sumitadv.sumit Senior Member
    edited October 2009
    B. Kuthbudeen S/o. Batcha Rowther

    Site No. 7, Sri Ganesh Nagar,

    Echanari, Coimbatore. --- Complainant

    Vs.

    Punjab National Bank,

    Oppanakara Street Branch,

    Oppanakara Street,Coimbatore. --- Opposite Party




    ORDER



    This complaint is filed by the Complainant praying this Forum directing the opposite party to return the original sale deed registered as Document No. 3916/95 to the complainant, and to pay compensation.

    1. Both side present. Joined memo filed by both parties. The extract of join memo is given below:

    Both the parties respectfully submit the following. The original sale deed dated 13.11.1995 document No. 3916 of 1995 said to have been deposited by the complainant with erstwhile Nedungadi Bank Limited which is amalgamated with opposite party, as a security for the loan availed by the complainant is not found traceable inspite of all out efforts made by the opposite party. The said original sale deed document No. 3916 of 1995 is therefore irretrievably lost. The opposite party undertakes to give paper publication about the loss of the said original document in one issue of Malai Malar. The complainant received the registration copy of the sale deed dated 13.11.1995 document No. 3916 of 1995 from the opposite party today. From the facts and circumstances of the case of the complainant therefore not pressing the above complaint and the same may please be dismissed as settled out of court.

    National Bank

    ORDER



    Both sides present. Joined memo filed. As per memo the complainant has received the registration copy of the sale deed dated 13.11.1995 Document No. 3916/1995 (C.A. No. 6767/2008) from the opposite party. Matter settled. Memo recorded. Complainant is permitted to use this registration copy of sale deed in the place of original one. With this observation this complaint is dismissed as settled out of Court. No Costs.
  • adv.sumitadv.sumit Senior Member
    edited October 2009
    Shri Jai Prakash S/o Late Baldev,

    Resident of Village Syawan, PO Kunihar,

    Tehsil Arki, Distt. Solan (H.P.)



    … Complainant

    Versus



    Punjab National Bank,

    Kunihar, Tehsil Arki, Distt. Solan (H.P.)

    through its Branch Manager, The Mall, Solan (H.P.) …Opposite Party.








    O R D E R:

    Sureshwar Thakur (District Judge) President:- The instant complaint has been filed by the complainants, by invoking the provisions of Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant, avers that the OP-Bank, had, sanctioned a loan of Rs.80,000/-, on, 19.02.2001, in favour of the complainant and his father. Thereafter, the complainant started regularly depositing the loan instalments with the OP-Bank, but due to some unavoidable circumstances, he could not pay the instalments, regularly, however, in terms of settlement arrived at between the parties, he deposited a sum of Rs.70,000/- with the OP-Bank in one time settlement, hence, the OP-Bank, was under legal obligation to issue NOC, which they failed to do so. Hence, it is averred that there is apparent deficiency in service on the part of the OP-Bank and accordingly relief to the extent as detailed in the relief clause be awarded in favour of the complainant.

    2. The OP-Bank, in its written version, to the complaint, raised preliminary objections vis-à-vis maintainability of the complaint, inasmuch, as, lack of deficiency in service and cause of action. On merits, the OP-Bank contended that since the complainant had not deposited the loan amount regularly, hence, the complainant was requested to deposit the loan amount to regularize the account, but he failed to do so, hence, an amount of Rs.70,000/- which was lying in the saving account of the complainant was debited to his loan account and notice to this effect was also given to him, on, 22.04.2006. They further contend that in case the complainant deposits the due amount, they are ready and willing to issue N.O.C. in favour of the complainant. Hence, it is denied, that, there was any deficiency in service on their part or that they have indulged in an unfair trade practice.

    3. Thereafter, the parties adduced evidence, by way of affidavits, and, documents in support of their respective, contentions.

    4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also thoroughly scanned the entire record of the case.

    5. The complainant and his father, admittedly, were sanctioned, a term loan of Rs.80,000/-, on, 19.02.2001, by, the OP-Bank. The later failed to repay the loan advanced by the OP-Bank to them, hence, the OP-Bank proceeded to recover the loan amount, from, the saving bank account of the complainant. The complainant, is, aggrieved by the said act of the OP-Bank in proceeding to debit, a sum of Rs.70,000/- comprised in the saving bank account of the complainant with the OP-Bank, for, setting off, the, amount of loan as advanced to the principal borrowers, who, had failed to fulfill their obligation.

    6. The OP-Bank, has defended, its, aforesaid act on the strength of a general lien, the bank has, on, securities, which, also, comprised the saving bank account, of, the complainant with the OP-Bank, whose, sum was debited by the OP-Bank, purportedly in, exercise of its power of general lien, so as, to, ensure defrayment by the principal borrower of the loan amount advanced by the OP-Bank.

    7. Nonetheless, it is, also, necessary, to, bear in mind the terms and conditions, which were obliged to be carried out by the complainant under the loan agreement entered into interse the contesting parties whose terms had, to, necessarily vest an express authorization in the OP-Bank, to do so, so as to vindicate their act, as, only in the eventuality of an express recital in the loan agreement arrived, at, between the complainant and the OP-Bank and its empowering the OP-Bank, to, proceed against the security, of, the guarantee lying with it, for setting, off, the loan obligation of the principal borrower when the later has defaulted, that, the, general lien, as has been exercised, could be exercised on the part of the OP-bank.


    However, a perusal of the agreement of guarantee entered interse the complainant and the OP-Bank, Annexure R-5, does not detail, the, fact of such an express clause empowering the OP-Bank to proceed against the value of the saving account, as, opened by the complainant with it so as to set off the outstanding loan obligation of the principal borrower. Hence, we are, constrained not to vindicate the act of the OP-Bank, in, proceeding to, in the garb of its power of general lien extending to securities, to, set, it, off against the value of the savings bank account. In coming to the above conclusion, we draw support from a decision rendered by the Hon’ble HP State Consumer commission, in case Smt. Kuldep Kaur Gulati and others versus Allahabad Bank, in Original Complaint No.2 of 2005, decided on March 8, 2006.

    8. Resultantly, we allow the complaint and direct the OP-Bank as follows:-

    i) That the OP-Bank, shall, credit the amount of Rs.70,000/-, in his saving bank account;



    ii) That the OP-Bank, while crediting the aforesaid amount of Rs.70,000/-, in the saving bank account of the complainant, shall also provide interest on the said amount, as is prevalent, in the saving bank account, from the date when the said amount, was debited by the OP-Bank, from his saving bank account;



    iii) That the OP-Bank, shall also pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation to the complainant, for rendering deficient service;



    iv) That the OP-Bank, is at liberty to take appropriate steps against the complainant, for recovery of the outstanding amount, qua the loan afforded to him, by the OP-Bank;



    v) That the OP-Bank, is also burdened with litigation cost, quantified at Rs.1,000/-;



    vi) That the OP-Bank, shall, shall comply with this order, within a period of forty five days, after the date of receipt of copy of this order;



    9. That the complaint shall stands disposed of, in the above terms. The learned counsel for the parties undertook to collect the certified copy of this order from the office, free of cost, as per rules. The file after due completion, be consigned to record room.
  • adv.sumitadv.sumit Senior Member
    edited October 2009
    Anil Industries, Chapar Road, village & P.O. Chappar, District Ludhiana, through its Proprietor-Anil Kumar.



    …..Complainant.

    Versus



    1- Punjab National Bank, Zonal Office, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana, through its Zonal Manager.

    2- Punjab National Bank, Head Office Bhikaji Cama Palace, New Delhi through its General Manager.

    3- Punjab National Bank, Main Branch, Ahmedgarh through its Branch Manager.

    …..Opposite parties.







    O R D E R





    1- Complainant when failed despite doing B.Sc., to get a job, intended to set up a small manufacturing unit in village. Consequently, applied for loan and subsidy for manufacturing of agriculture implements, by approaching Khadi and village Industries Commission, Chandigarh, who recommended his application, for financial assistance. Complainant got his unit registered. Loan application forwarded by Khadi Commission, to Punjab National Bank, Ahmedgarh (opposite party no.3), being noddle branch. Opposite party no.3-bank financed term loan of Rs.13,15,000/- in installments from 27.11.2003 onwards, @ 10.5% P.A. fixed, on reduced basis.


    He was clearly told that the rate of interest will not be increased during the tenure of the loan. Complainant utilized the loan for the purpose for which, it was sanctioned. But subsequently, opposite party unilaterally and without intimation, increased agreed rate of interest from 10.5% p.a. to 11.75% p.a., w.e.f. 1.4.2005. Complainant protested the same and was assured, to reduce the same. But they failed to comply with the assurance and continued to charge higher rate of interest. Subsequently, on 19.8.2006, opposite party unilaterally and arbitrarily enhanced interest from 11.75% p.a. to 12.25% p.a., without his consent and intimation.


    He again protested enhancement of the interest. But they further increased interest from 12.25% p.a. to 13% p.a. from 28.8.2006 to 14.5.2007. Such unilateral enhancement of the interest was wrong, arbitrary, amounting to deficiency in service. Consequently, this complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, directing opposite party to charge settled and agreed rate of interest 10.5% p.a. and excess so realized from him, be refunded with interest and be paid compensation of Rs.1 lac for causing harassment.

    2- Oppoiste party in reply, pleaded that the interest has been charged as per agreement between the parties. Complaint is barred and not maintainable and complainant has suppressed material facts. Rather, complainant applied for term loan facility and executed relevant documents, as well as cash credit hypothecation on 27.11.2003. Complainant agreed to pay minimum interest @ 11.50% p.a., with monthly rests, subject to change in interest, as per RBI rules and circulars. The term loan of Rs.13.50 lacs and cash credit facility was availed by the complainant. He further agreed to pay penal interest of 2% p.a. in default of payment and breach of terms and conditions of the executed agreement.


    Complainant committed default in payment, so proceedings under securitization have been initiated against him. Present complaint is counterblast to those proceedings. Even complainant filed a civil suit, which is pending and also got one civil suit filed through one Vijay Kumar, which was dismissed on 28.1.2008 and thereafter, filed another civil suit against the bank, which is pending. In that civil suit, Vijay Kumar claimed himself to be tenant of the complainant. If that is the position, then complainant could not have transferred the possession and business hypothecated with the bank. So, violated terms of the agreement. Rest of the allegations are also denied.

    3- Both parties adduced evidence in support of their claims and stood heard through their respective counsels.

    4- Main question to be determined is whether while availing loan, complainant had agreed to pay fixed rate of interest or interest agreed was floating. Consequently, the matter for adjudication owes its existence to loan agreement, executed between the parties. Ex.R2 is the copy of term loan agreement. Vide this agreement, it is apparent that complainant had agreed to repay the term loan of Rs.13,50,000/- with interest @ 0.50% over the Reserve Bank, with a minimum of 11.5% p.a., with monthly rests. So, it means agreed rate of interest was fluctuating and not fixed one. The minimum rate of interest was also 11.50% and not 10.5%, as alleged by the complainant, in his complaint. Similarly, in agreement of hypothecation Ex.R3, rate of interest is also mentioned to be floating and not fixed.

    5- When complainant has agreed, to pay fluctuating rate of interest and there is no proof that as per agreement, was to pay fixed rate of interest, therefore, finding no merit in the complaint, the same is dismissed. Because there is no deficiency in service on part of the opposite party. No order as to costs. Copy of order be provided to the parties free of charge. File be completed and consigned to record room.
  • adv.sumitadv.sumit Senior Member
    edited October 2009
    Shri Jai Prakash S/o Late Baldev,

    Resident of Village Syawan, PO Kunihar,

    Tehsil Arki, Distt. Solan (H.P.)



    … Complainant

    Versus



    Punjab National Bank,

    Kunihar, Tehsil Arki, Distt. Solan (H.P.)

    through its Branch Manager, The Mall, Solan (H.P.) …Opposite Party.









    O R D E R:



    The instant complaint has been filed by the complainants, by invoking the provisions of Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant, avers that the OP-Bank, had, sanctioned a loan of Rs.80,000/-, on, 19.02.2001, in favour of the complainant and his father. Thereafter, the complainant started regularly depositing the loan instalments with the OP-Bank, but due to some unavoidable circumstances, he could not pay the instalments, regularly, however, in terms of settlement arrived at between the parties, he deposited a sum of Rs.70,000/- with the OP-Bank in one time settlement, hence, the OP-Bank, was under legal obligation to issue NOC, which they failed to do so. Hence, it is averred that there is apparent deficiency in service on the part of the OP-Bank and accordingly relief to the extent as detailed in the relief clause be awarded in favour of the complainant.

    2. The OP-Bank, in its written version, to the complaint, raised preliminary objections vis-à-vis maintainability of the complaint, inasmuch, as, lack of deficiency in service and cause of action. On merits, the OP-Bank contended that since the complainant had not deposited the loan amount regularly, hence, the complainant was requested to deposit the loan amount to regularize the account, but he failed to do so, hence, an amount of Rs.70,000/- which was lying in the saving account of the complainant was debited to his loan account and notice to this effect was also given to him, on, 22.04.2006. They further contend that in case the complainant deposits the due amount, they are ready and willing to issue N.O.C. in favour of the complainant. Hence, it is denied, that, there was any deficiency in service on their part or that they have indulged in an unfair trade practice.

    3. Thereafter, the parties adduced evidence, by way of affidavits, and, documents in support of their respective, contentions.

    4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also thoroughly scanned the entire record of the case.

    5. The complainant and his father, admittedly, were sanctioned, a term loan of Rs.80,000/-, on, 19.02.2001, by, the OP-Bank. The later failed to repay the loan advanced by the OP-Bank to them, hence, the OP-Bank proceeded to recover the loan amount, from, the saving bank account of the complainant. The complainant, is, aggrieved by the said act of the OP-Bank in proceeding to debit, a sum of Rs.70,000/- comprised in the saving bank account of the complainant with the OP-Bank, for, setting off, the, amount of loan as advanced to the principal borrowers, who, had failed to fulfill their obligation.

    6. The OP-Bank, has defended, its, aforesaid act on the strength of a general lien, the bank has, on, securities, which, also, comprised the saving bank account, of, the complainant with the OP-Bank, whose, sum was debited by the OP-Bank, purportedly in, exercise of its power of general lien, so as, to, ensure defrayment by the principal borrower of the loan amount advanced by the OP-Bank.

    7. Nonetheless, it is, also, necessary, to, bear in mind the terms and conditions, which were obliged to be carried out by the complainant under the loan agreement entered into interse the contesting parties whose terms had, to, necessarily vest an express authorization in the OP-Bank, to do so, so as to vindicate their act, as, only in the eventuality of an express recital in the loan agreement arrived, at, between the complainant and the OP-Bank and its empowering the OP-Bank, to, proceed against the security, of, the guarantee lying with it, for setting, off, the loan obligation of the principal borrower when the later has defaulted, that, the, general lien, as has been exercised, could be exercised on the part of the OP-bank.


    However, a perusal of the agreement of guarantee entered interse the complainant and the OP-Bank, Annexure R-5, does not detail, the, fact of such an express clause empowering the OP-Bank to proceed against the value of the saving account, as, opened by the complainant with it so as to set off the outstanding loan obligation of the principal borrower. Hence, we are, constrained not to vindicate the act of the OP-Bank, in, proceeding to, in the garb of its power of general lien extending to securities, to, set, it, off against the value of the savings bank account. In coming to the above conclusion, we draw support from a decision rendered by the Hon’ble HP State Consumer commission, in case Smt. Kuldep Kaur Gulati and others versus Allahabad Bank, in Original Complaint No.2 of 2005, decided on March 8, 2006.

    8. Resultantly, we allow the complaint and direct the OP-Bank as follows:-

    i) That the OP-Bank, shall, credit the amount of Rs.70,000/-, in his saving bank account;



    ii) That the OP-Bank, while crediting the aforesaid amount of Rs.70,000/-, in the saving bank account of the complainant, shall also provide interest on the said amount, as is prevalent, in the saving bank account, from the date when the said amount, was debited by the OP-Bank, from his saving bank account;



    iii) That the OP-Bank, shall also pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation to the complainant, for rendering deficient service;



    iv) That the OP-Bank, is at liberty to take appropriate steps against the complainant, for recovery of the outstanding amount, qua the loan afforded to him, by the OP-Bank;



    v) That the OP-Bank, is also burdened with litigation cost, quantified at Rs.1,000/-;



    vi) That the OP-Bank, shall, shall comply with this order, within a period of forty five days, after the date of receipt of copy of this order;



    9. That the complaint shall stands disposed of, in the above terms. The learned counsel for the parties undertook to collect the certified copy of this order from the office, free of cost, as per rules. The file after due completion, be consigned to record room.
  • adv.sumitadv.sumit Senior Member
    edited October 2009
    Shri Jai Prakash S/o Late Baldev,

    Resident of Village Syawan, PO Kunihar,

    Tehsil Arki, Distt. Solan (H.P.)



    … Complainant

    Versus



    Punjab National Bank,

    Kunihar, Tehsil Arki, Distt. Solan (H.P.)

    through its Branch Manager, The Mall, Solan (H.P.) …Opposite Party.







    O R D E R:

    The instant complaint has been filed by the complainants, by invoking the provisions of Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant, avers that the OP-Bank, had, sanctioned a loan of Rs.80,000/-, on, 19.02.2001, in favour of the complainant and his father. Thereafter, the complainant started regularly depositing the loan instalments with the OP-Bank, but due to some unavoidable circumstances, he could not pay the instalments, regularly, however, in terms of settlement arrived at between the parties, he deposited a sum of Rs.70,000/- with the OP-Bank in one time settlement, hence, the OP-Bank, was under legal obligation to issue NOC, which they failed to do so. Hence, it is averred that there is apparent deficiency in service on the part of the OP-Bank and accordingly relief to the extent as detailed in the relief clause be awarded in favour of the complainant.

    2. The OP-Bank, in its written version, to the complaint, raised preliminary objections vis-à-vis maintainability of the complaint, inasmuch, as, lack of deficiency in service and cause of action. On merits, the OP-Bank contended that since the complainant had not deposited the loan amount regularly, hence, the complainant was requested to deposit the loan amount to regularize the account, but he failed to do so, hence, an amount of Rs.70,000/- which was lying in the saving account of the complainant was debited to his loan account and notice to this effect was also given to him, on, 22.04.2006. They further contend that in case the complainant deposits the due amount, they are ready and willing to issue N.O.C. in favour of the complainant. Hence, it is denied, that, there was any deficiency in service on their part or that they have indulged in an unfair trade practice.

    3. Thereafter, the parties adduced evidence, by way of affidavits, and, documents in support of their respective, contentions.

    4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also thoroughly scanned the entire record of the case.

    5. The complainant and his father, admittedly, were sanctioned, a term loan of Rs.80,000/-, on, 19.02.2001, by, the OP-Bank. The later failed to repay the loan advanced by the OP-Bank to them, hence, the OP-Bank proceeded to recover the loan amount, from, the saving bank account of the complainant. The complainant, is, aggrieved by the said act of the OP-Bank in proceeding to debit, a sum of Rs.70,000/- comprised in the saving bank account of the complainant with the OP-Bank, for, setting off, the, amount of loan as advanced to the principal borrowers, who, had failed to fulfill their obligation.

    6. The OP-Bank, has defended, its, aforesaid act on the strength of a general lien, the bank has, on, securities, which, also, comprised the saving bank account, of, the complainant with the OP-Bank, whose, sum was debited by the OP-Bank, purportedly in, exercise of its power of general lien, so as, to, ensure defrayment by the principal borrower of the loan amount advanced by the OP-Bank.

    7. Nonetheless, it is, also, necessary, to, bear in mind the terms and conditions, which were obliged to be carried out by the complainant under the loan agreement entered into interse the contesting parties whose terms had, to, necessarily vest an express authorization in the OP-Bank, to do so, so as to vindicate their act, as, only in the eventuality of an express recital in the loan agreement arrived, at, between the complainant and the OP-Bank and its empowering the OP-Bank, to, proceed against the security, of, the guarantee lying with it, for setting, off, the loan obligation of the principal borrower when the later has defaulted, that, the, general lien, as has been exercised, could be exercised on the part of the OP-bank.


    However, a perusal of the agreement of guarantee entered interse the complainant and the OP-Bank, Annexure R-5, does not detail, the, fact of such an express clause empowering the OP-Bank to proceed against the value of the saving account, as, opened by the complainant with it so as to set off the outstanding loan obligation of the principal borrower. Hence, we are, constrained not to vindicate the act of the OP-Bank, in, proceeding to, in the garb of its power of general lien extending to securities, to, set, it, off against the value of the savings bank account. In coming to the above conclusion, we draw support from a decision rendered by the Hon’ble HP State Consumer commission, in case Smt. Kuldep Kaur Gulati and others versus Allahabad Bank, in Original Complaint No.2 of 2005, decided on March 8, 2006.

    8. Resultantly, we allow the complaint and direct the OP-Bank as follows:-

    i) That the OP-Bank, shall, credit the amount of Rs.70,000/-, in his saving bank account;



    ii) That the OP-Bank, while crediting the aforesaid amount of Rs.70,000/-, in the saving bank account of the complainant, shall also provide interest on the said amount, as is prevalent, in the saving bank account, from the date when the said amount, was debited by the OP-Bank, from his saving bank account;



    iii) That the OP-Bank, shall also pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation to the complainant, for rendering deficient service;



    iv) That the OP-Bank, is at liberty to take appropriate steps against the complainant, for recovery of the outstanding amount, qua the loan afforded to him, by the OP-Bank;



    v) That the OP-Bank, is also burdened with litigation cost, quantified at Rs.1,000/-;



    vi) That the OP-Bank, shall, shall comply with this order, within a period of forty five days, after the date of receipt of copy of this order;



    9. That the complaint shall stands disposed of, in the above terms. The learned counsel for the parties undertook to collect the certified copy of this order from the office, free of cost, as per rules. The file after due completion, be consigned to record room.
  • adv.sumitadv.sumit Senior Member
    edited October 2009
    Jagan Nath (aged 61 years) son of Sh. Piare Lal, Ward No.5, house No.132, Samrala, Ludhiana.
    (Complainant)

    Vs.



    Punjab National bank, Branch Samrala, LIC Building Samrala, Distt. Ludhiana through Manager.

    (Opposite party)






    O R D E R



    1. Complainant after retirement started obtaining his pension from the opposite party through his saving bank passbook no.3466000100286954 qua his PPO no.5089. His grouse in this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is that had been withdrawing his pension from his that account regularly till September,2007. But thereafter opposite party refused to release his pension since October 2007 and did not credit intentionally monthly pension of Rs.1900/- to his account.


    Though they were under obligation to credit every month pension amount to his account. He being senior citizen was totally dependant upon his pension. Due to mal practice of the opposite party, served a legal notice dated 13.4.2007 on them. Because, they falsely alleged releasing illegal payment of Rs.26,931/- as pension arrears to him. Opposite party also wrongly charged Rs.100+35=35+35=Rs.205/- on 7.11.2007 and debited the same to his account. For such deficiency in service by opposite party, claimed compensation of Rs. 40,000/- for harassment with direction to opposite party to release his pension from 10/2007 onward without any break.

    2. Opposite party contested claim of the complainant by claiming his averments to be false and incorrect. However, having saving account with them and receipt of pension of Rs.1900/- per month in that account are admitted. But they claimed that complainant concealed material facts. Because, he had taken loan of Rs.26,000/- from them as per prevalent loan scheme for the pensioners. The loan was sanctioned subject to condition that the amount of pension would be payable only after adjusting withdrawal benefit amount already paid. Pension account of the complainant was maintained as per banking laws.


    There was no deficiency in service on their part. Complainant operated his account upto 4.10.2007. On 7.4.2007 applied for personal loan, agreed to repay the same in 35 equal monthly instalments and authorised bank to recover monthly instalments from his pension commencing from May,2007. The pension arrears were payable after adjusting withdrawal benefit amount already paid. The pension of the complainant was regularly credited to his account upto date. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on their part.

    3. Both the parties adduced their evidence by way of affidavits and documents in support of their respective contentions.

    4. We have heard the arguments addressed by the ld. counsel for the parties and have gone through the file, scanned the documents and other material on record.

    5. After going through the material placed on the record, the position which emerges is that the complainant is getting pension of Rs.1900/- per month and that pension was credited regularly by opposite party to his saving bank account, copy of which is Ex.C.1 and Ex.C.3. But on 22.8.2006 a sum of Rs.26,931/- as pension arrears was credited to his account. Out of it, complainant withdrew Rs.20,000/- on 22.8.2006, Rs.3000/- on 23.8.2006, Rs.1800/- on 25.8.2006 and Rs.1500/- on 29.8.2006.


    In the mean time, pension of Rs.1901/- on 23.8.2006 was also credited to his account. He as such on 29.8.2006 was having credit of Rs. 3538/-. But by mistake or error, opposite party again on 30.8.2006 credited a sum of Rs.26,931/- to account of the complainant showing a sum of Rs. 30,469/- in his account. Second credit of pension arrears amounting to Rs.26,931/- on 30.8.2006 by opposite party was just an error on their part. Because, this amount of pension arrears was already credited to his account on 22.8.2006. Out of that amount, he withdrew substantial amount from his account.


    As error was committed by crediting again on 30.8.2006 pension arrears of Rs.26,931/- to his account, opposite party entered into a loan agreement on application Ex.R.1 of the complainant. Complainant then vide letter Ex.R.4 dated 7.4.2007 agreed to repay the advanced amount of Rs.26,000/- in 24 equal monthly instalments. He vide letter of authority Ex.R.5 empowered opposite party to recover loan in monthly instalments commencing from May,2007 from his saving bank account, to which his pension was credited. Regarding such consent clause, complainant also executed documents Ex.R.6 and R8 with the opposite party. Under these documents, complainant had authorised opposite party to realize instalments of loan of Rs.26,000./- from his saving bank account, to which his pension was also credited.

    6. Probably, this arrangement was done by the opposite party as they inadvertently on two occasions had credited pension arrears of Rs.26,931/- to his account. To get the matter cleared, loan of Rs.26,000/- was shown made available to the complainant who consequently authorised opposite party to deduct loan instalments from his saving bank account. It was for such a reason that the complainant alleges that since Oct.2007, was not paid pension. Though statement of account Ex.R.11 shows that a sum of Rs.1901/- being amount of his pension has been regularly credited to his account by the opposite party from May,2006 till April 2008.

    7. In these circumstances, on behalf of opposite party complainant was accused suppressing intimation about taking loan and authorizing OP bank to realize the loan instalments from his account. Whereas on behalf of the complainant argued that they received debt amount by stopping the payment of his pension, for which opposite party would be guilty of not rendering proper services to its consumer.

    8. In the instant case, on account of bonafide mistake that pension arrears were credited twice to the account of the complainant and that credit wrongly given to the complainant remained as such. But complainant entered into an agreement showing taking loan of Rs.26,000/- from the opposite party and empowered them to realize that amount from his saving account, to which his pension was credited. This was mutual agreement between the parties.
  • adv.sumitadv.sumit Senior Member
    edited October 2009
    Anil Industries, Chapar Road, village & P.O. Chappar, District Ludhiana, through its Proprietor-Anil Kumar.



    …..Complainant.

    Versus



    1- Punjab National Bank, Zonal Office, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana, through its Zonal Manager.

    2- Punjab National Bank, Head Office Bhikaji Cama Palace, New Delhi through its General Manager.

    3- Punjab National Bank, Main Branch, Ahmedgarh through its Branch Manager.

    …..Opposite parties.









    O R D E R








    1- Complainant when failed despite doing B.Sc., to get a job, intended to set up a small manufacturing unit in village. Consequently, applied for loan and subsidy for manufacturing of agriculture implements, by approaching Khadi and village Industries Commission, Chandigarh, who recommended his application, for financial assistance. Complainant got his unit registered. Loan application forwarded by Khadi Commission, to Punjab National Bank, Ahmedgarh (opposite party no.3), being noddle branch. Opposite party no.3-bank financed term loan of Rs.13,15,000/- in installments from 27.11.2003 onwards, @ 10.5% P.A. fixed, on reduced basis. He was clearly told that the rate of interest will not be increased during the tenure of the loan.


    Complainant utilized the loan for the purpose for which, it was sanctioned. But subsequently, opposite party unilaterally and without intimation, increased agreed rate of interest from 10.5% p.a. to 11.75% p.a., w.e.f. 1.4.2005. Complainant protested the same and was assured, to reduce the same. But they failed to comply with the assurance and continued to charge higher rate of interest. Subsequently, on 19.8.2006, opposite party unilaterally and arbitrarily enhanced interest from 11.75% p.a. to 12.25% p.a., without his consent and intimation.


    He again protested enhancement of the interest. But they further increased interest from 12.25% p.a. to 13% p.a. from 28.8.2006 to 14.5.2007. Such unilateral enhancement of the interest was wrong, arbitrary, amounting to deficiency in service. Consequently, this complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, directing opposite party to charge settled and agreed rate of interest 10.5% p.a. and excess so realized from him, be refunded with interest and be paid compensation of Rs.1 lac for causing harassment.

    2- Oppoiste party in reply, pleaded that the interest has been charged as per agreement between the parties. Complaint is barred and not maintainable and complainant has suppressed material facts. Rather, complainant applied for term loan facility and executed relevant documents, as well as cash credit hypothecation on 27.11.2003. Complainant agreed to pay minimum interest @ 11.50% p.a., with monthly rests, subject to change in interest, as per RBI rules and circulars. The term loan of Rs.13.50 lacs and cash credit facility was availed by the complainant.


    He further agreed to pay penal interest of 2% p.a. in default of payment and breach of terms and conditions of the executed agreement. Complainant committed default in payment, so proceedings under securitization have been initiated against him. Present complaint is counterblast to those proceedings.


    Even complainant filed a civil suit, which is pending and also got one civil suit filed through one Vijay Kumar, which was dismissed on 28.1.2008 and thereafter, filed another civil suit against the bank, which is pending. In that civil suit, Vijay Kumar claimed himself to be tenant of the complainant. If that is the position, then complainant could not have transferred the possession and business hypothecated with the bank. So, violated terms of the agreement. Rest of the allegations are also denied.

    3- Both parties adduced evidence in support of their claims and stood heard through their respective counsels.

    4- Main question to be determined is whether while availing loan, complainant had agreed to pay fixed rate of interest or interest agreed was floating. Consequently, the matter for adjudication owes its existence to loan agreement, executed between the parties. Ex.R2 is the copy of term loan agreement. Vide this agreement, it is apparent that complainant had agreed to repay the term loan of Rs.13,50,000/- with interest @ 0.50% over the Reserve Bank, with a minimum of 11.5% p.a., with monthly rests.


    So, it means agreed rate of interest was fluctuating and not fixed one. The minimum rate of interest was also 11.50% and not 10.5%, as alleged by the complainant, in his complaint. Similarly, in agreement of hypothecation Ex.R3, rate of interest is also mentioned to be floating and not fixed.
  • edited November 2009
    Honourable Judge Sahab,

    Deficiency in Service : ATM Transaction

    Honourable Sir,

    1. I am Customer No 200299214. Acct No 01420 104010 64935 of PNB Extn Counter Bihar Reg. Centre U/B Danapur Cantt Ph 06115 227282, 223085.
    2. On 27 Nov 09 at 20:52 I asked fo Bal at ATM ID S1AN00125404 of SBI. I Received a WRONG reply.
    3. In a minute I tried to WithDraw Rs.10,000/-BUT that ATM showed Error Code 263 BUT the ATM did not provide the above mentioned Cash Withdrawal of Rs Ten Thouand.
    4. I went to PNB ATM ID D02014200 at Thana Mor, Main Road Danapur Bihar-801503 at 21:07 on 27/11/09, Tried to find balance and then withdraw Rs.10,000/-BUT the ATM did not provide the above mentioned Cash Withdrawal of Rs Ten Thouand after Repeated Tries.
  • adv.singhadv.singh Senior Member
    edited January 2010
    First Appeal No. 2009/728

    (Arising from the order dated 06.07.2009 passed by District Forum(South West) Sheikh Sarai, New Delhi, in Complaint Case No.451/2009)

    Sh. Shail Sahni, … Appellant/Complainant

    III/127, Gopi Nath Bazar, in person.

    Delhi Cantt., Delhi

    Versus



    1. Punjab National Bank ... Respondent/OP
    Gopi Nath Bazar Branch,
    Delhi Cantt. Delhi.



    2. Sh. K.K. Bishnoi,

    Chief Manager,
    Punjab National Bank
    Gopi Nath Bazar Branch,
    Delhi Cantt. Delhi.
    CORAM



    Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi ... President

    Sh. M.L. Sahni … Member



    1. Whether reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment? YES



    2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? YES



    Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi, President(ORAL)
    1. The appellant had applied for issuance of Gold Credit Card to the OP which was declined. He filed a complaint before District Forum, which was summarily rejected on 06.07.2009 at the stage of admission.

    2. That is how the appellant comes here in appeal.

    3. We have heard the appellant at the stage of admission.

    4. The appellant seems to be under the impression that he can force the respondent OP Bank and its Chief Manager to issue credit card, but the discretion of the bank has its own significance. The appellant has referred to the guidelines dated 06.03.2007 issued by Reserve Bank of India on “Fair Practices Code for Lenders”. The relevant portion of which is as follows: -

    “4. ….. Further in terms of para 2(i)(d) of the above Circular dated 05.05.2003, banks FIs were advised that in the case of small borrowers seeking loans upto Rs.2 lakhs the lenders should convey in writing, within stipulated time, the main reason/reasons which, in the opinion of the bank/FI have led to the rejection of the loan application.

    5. On a view, it has been decided that in case of all categories of loans irrespective of any threshold limits, including credit card applications, banks/FIs should convey in writing the main reason/reasons which, in the opinion of the bank/FI have led to the rejection of the loan application.



    5. In the first place, these are mere guidelines and are not laws or rules, which may be binding on the bank, though the banks are supposed to give due weightage to them. But that is, where the buck, ends.

    6. Besides what the Reserve Bank of India mentioned in the guidelines is that the bank should give reasons for rejection of an application for issuance of credit card. The bank in reply to the application given by the appellant under the Right to Information Act 2005, mentioned that the appellant can approach in appeal to Deputy Governor, Reserve Bank of India, Mumbai against the rejection of his application, but the appellant did not appeal before Deputy Governor, Reserve Bank of India, Mumbai and instead filed a complaint before District Forum.

    7. In the circumstance, the District Forum was justified in rejecting the complaint off end.

    8. Appeal dismissed in limine.

    9. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.

    10. Announced on the 11th day of November 2009.
  • adv.singhadv.singh Senior Member
    edited January 2010
    F.A.No.678 OF 2006 AGAINST C.D.NO.574 OF 2004 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM-III HYDREABAD
    Between

    1. Shri Shivdatrai Educational and Charitable Trust
    rep. by its Trustee, Mr.M.L.Agarwal,
    S/o late Shri G.R.Agarwal, aged about 69 years
    Occ: Trustee, R/o 2-1-113, Tobacco Bazar
    Secunderabad-003 ( A.P.)

    2. Mr.Mohan Lal Agarwal S/o Sri Prahalad Rai Agarwal
    Aged about 71 yrs Occ: Trustee R/o 1-9-8,
    Industrial Area, Azamabad, Hyderabad-020

    3. Mr.Mukundlal Agarwal S/o late Sri Sundermal Agarwal
    Aged about 67 years, Occ: Trustee
    R/o 2-1-41, Tobacoo Bazar, Secunderabad-003

    4. Mr.Inder Karan Agarwal S/o Sri Bilasrai Agarwal
    Aged about 55 years, Occ: Trustees
    R/o 21-2-211, Pathergatti, Hyderabad-002

    Appellants/ complainants

    A N D

    The Branch manager
    Punjab National Bank
    Charminar Branch, patel market
    Hyderabad-002

    Respondent/ opposite party



    Counsel for the Appellants Sri G.Venkatswamy Goud

    Counsel for the Respondent Sri K.Suryanarayana





    QUORUM: SRI SYED ABDHULLAH, PRESIDING MEMBER

    &

    SRI R.LAKSHMINARSIMHA RAO, MEMBER

    THURSDAY THE FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER

    TWO THOUSAND NINE
    ( As per R.Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member)

    The appeal is filed by the unsuccessful complainant challenging the order of the District Forum-III Hyderabad in C.D.No.574 of 2004.

    The facts leading to filing of the complaint are that the appellant, Sri Shivdatrai Educational and Charitable Trust had taken on hire locker no.118 on 26.7.2000 from the respondent bank having executed a deed with instructions to the respondent bank to permit any two of the four trustees who had signed the deed. The Manager of the respondent bank had not allowed the locker being operated. One of the trustees Sri Bilasrai relinquished his trust ship but he had not handed over the key of the locker by stating that it was misplaced. Therefore the appellant trust had requested the respondent to break open the locker in the presence of all the trustees. The appellant trust had got issued legal notice dated 6.4.2004 with a demand to break open the locker and make inventory of the securities kept in lock. The respondent had not given any reply. The securities kept in the locker are discharged and some of them had expired for not having been renewed. For the securities which were not renewed the appellant trust would incur heavy loss in the shape of interest which amounts to Rs.3 lakhs. The appellant trust had suffered mental agony due to the non-cooperation of the manager of the respondent in permitting them to break open the locker. Hence, the appellant filed the complaint seeking damages to the extent of Rs.3 lakhs and compensation an amount of Rs.one lakh in addition to the costs of the proceedings.

    The respondent resisted the plea. It was contended that the complaint is not maintainable for non-joinder of all the trustees representing the appellant trust. The appellant trust has suppressed the material fact that as and when any account is to be opened in the name of the trust the respondent bank would obtain copy of trust deed and also resolution of the members of the trust in regard to the operation of the trust account and mode of operation thereof. As per the trust deed the affairs of the trust would be managed by the trustees whose number should not go below four at any time. In other words a minimum number of four trustees is required to operate the account of the appellant trust. On 12.12.2002 the appellant trust had informed the respondent bank that one of the trustees Mr.Bilas Rai had relinquished his trust ship and as such the existing three trustees alone are authorized to operate locker. In another letter dated 14.5.2003 signed by three trustees it was stated that one of the trustees Bilas Rai had resigned from trust and he had not handed over the key of the locker. Hence, it was requested for breaking open of the locker. The appellant has also addressed a letter dated 27.6.2003 in response to which the respondent has issued reply dated 6.3.2003 and 13.6.2003 requesting the appellant trust to furnish information regarding inclusion of any trustee as required by the terms of the trust deed. Another letter dated 28.6.2003 was also addressed to the appellant trust informing it that the composition of the trust was short of the required number as per the terms of the trust deed.

    The appellant through its letter dated 3.7.2003 informed the respondent bank that it had expelled one of the trustees Sri Inderkaran and therefore left with only three trustees. Thereafter, the respondent bank had addressed letters dated 5.7.2003, 10.7.2003 and 14.7.2003 informing the appellant that as per the terms of the trust deed there should be at least four trustees and any one of the permanent trustees to the trust deed can nominate a male lenial dissident family member as trustee in his place and as such signatures of at least four trustees was required for operation of the locker. The request made by the three trustees will not be valid as per clause IV of the trust deed. Thereafter several letters dated 18.10.2003, 1.11.2003 were addressed in this regard to the appellant trust. The appellant trust had taken the matter to the higher authorities of the respondent bank and also filed a complaint before the Banking Ombudsman. After enquiry the Ombudsman by his order dated 20.1.2004 had not found any deficiency in service on the part of the respondent bank. The Ombudsman held that certain internal differences among the trustees as also that the respondent bank had to permit the operation of the locker as per the instructions given by the all the trustees. The appellant is a trustee and it cannot complain of any mental agony. The appellant had made allegations in its notice dated 6.4.2004 against the Banking Ombudsman that he had passed an exparte order against the principles of natural justice. The complaint signed by M.L.Agarwal alone is not maintainable. The complaint has to be signed and verified on behalf of the trust but not in individual name of the trustee. Co-trustees are joint owners and they must act jointly but not individually

    The District Forum has dismissed the complaint holding that as per the terms of the trust deed four trustees are required to operate the locker as also the legal issues raised by the respondent bank can only be decided by a civil court.

    Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the appellant trust has filed the appeal contending that the District Forum has failed to understand the nature and scope of the Clause V of the Trust Deed and it had not perused the trust deed, Ex.A14 as also the authorization executed by the trustees authorizing M.L.AGarwal one of the trustees to file cases against the respondent bank. It was also stated that the District Forum has failed to appreciate the order of the Banking Ombudsman.

    The points for consideration are:

    1) Whether the complaint filed by the appellant trust is maintainable?

    2) Whether the locker hired by the appellant trust can be operated by three trustees in terms of the trust deed?

    3) Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the respondent bank?

    4) To what relief?



    The District Forum has not transmitted the records in spite of a specific direction issued thereto on 13.12.2006. Hence, we proceed with the matter by perusal of the copies of the documents record made available on the record by the appellant and in the light of written arguments of both the parties.

    POINT NO.1 The appellant trust at the time of its inception consisted of six trustees of whom a trustee Shivdatrai died. Thereafter the trust continued to be managed by the remaining five trustees. Mr.Bhuramal is a trustee for his life time and the other four trustees are the permanent founder trustees having power to nominate any of their respective family members. Clause No.IV of the Trust Deed Ex.A14 reads as under:

    The affairs of the trust shall continue to be managed by the trustees who number shall not exceed six nor go below four at any time.



    It is incorporated in the trust deed that the death or retirement of a trustee will not affect the continuance of trust as the vacancy caused in the case of founder trustee’s death will be filled in by the nominee who is appointed by the trustee during his life time. One of the trutees Sri Bilas Rai relinquished his trust ship and the trust was left with three trustees. The appellant trust had hired the locker bearing No.118 with the signatures of all the four trustees, i.e., Bilasrai, Maniklal, Mohanlal and Mukundlal. The appellant had addressed letter dated 12.12.2002 that Bilasrai relinquished his trust ship and he being no more a trustee of the appellant trust, remaining three trustees are authorized to operate the locker. Further, in the letter it was stated that Mr.Inder Karan was having business deals and account with the respondent bank. It was requested that Inder Karan cannot be permitted to operate the locker without the signature of the “existing three trustees”. It is the appellant’s version that at the time of hiring of the locker it was agreed that any two trustees can operate it. There is no evidence on record to the effect and this fact is established by letter dated 14.5.2003 addressed by the appellant trust to the respondent bank that after resignation of Bilasrai, the existing three trustees passed resolution empowering any of the two trustees to operate the locker.

    In the letter dated 7.10.2003 the appellant trust had stated that the locker was hired by the trust in trust’s name with signatures of all the four trustees with instructions that any two trustees can operate. One of the trustees Bilas Rao had relinquished his trusteeship and nominated his son Inder Karan. Further, it is stated that Inder Karan expelled from the trust on 27.9.2002.

    In the letter dated 21.10.2003 the appellant trust had stated that there were only three trustees existing. The relevant portion of the letter is extracted below:

    The above locker was hired by this trust in the trust’s name, with signatures of all four trustees with instructions that nay two trustees can operate which please note. One of the trustees Sri Bilasrai has relinquished from the trust and nominated his son Mr.Inder Karan. Mr.Inder Karan was expelled from the trust on 27.9.2003 and in respect of this Xerox copy of relinquishment and Board resolution copy signed by all the trustees was submitted to the branch but the branch is not adopting the right view and insisted for the signatures of Mr.Bilasrai which is utterly wrong?”



    Having thus the matter stood so, the appellant trust had impleaded three names as the appellants, Mohanlal Agarwal, Mukundlal Agarwal and Inder Karan in the appeal without there being any impleadment of the three such persons in the complaint. According to the version of the appellant trust in the letters relevant portion of which was extracted hereinabove, the trust as on the date of filing of the complaint was consisting of three trustees, Bilasrai having relinquished his trusteeship and Inder Karan having been expelled from the trust. Interestingly, the name of Inder Karan is added as appellant No.4 in the appeal. The appellants no.2 to 4 were impleaded as individuals in the appeal without any notice having been served on them. The appellants no.2 to 4 have not signed the appeal nor were they impleaded in the complaint. Hence, the complaint was filed without making all the trustees as complainants.

    The appellant is a trust registered under Indian Trusts Act, cannot be considered as complainant and it cannot be held that the appellant trust can invoke the jurisdiction of Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act. The Hon’ble National Commission in “ Pratibha Pratisthan & Ors Vs Allahabad Bank & Ors” reported in IV (2007) CPJ 33 (NC) held that the complaint filed by a trust is not maintainable under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. It was held that :

    Further, in support, the learned counsel for the opposite party bank has rightly pointed out an observation from DJ Hayton, Hayton & Marshall Commentary and Cases on The Law of Trusts and Equitable Remedies, wherein it has been observed that –

    “ A trust, unlike a company, ahs no legal personality; thus, it cannot own property for entering into contracts, sue or are sued. It is the trustees who own the trust property, enter into contracts, sue or are sued. A trustee as such has no distinct legal personality in his representative capacity separate from himself in his personal capacity”



    Considering the aforesaid definition of the word, “person”, a public trust is not ‘person’ which can be considered to be a ‘consumer’ entitled to file complaint before the Consumer Forum. The reasons are:

    1) Trust is not included in the definition of the word ‘person’. The Legislature included cooperative society under the definition person but not ‘public trust’;

    2) Secondly, trust is not a legal entity.



    Hence the complainant, Pratibha Pratishthan Trust, which is registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950, cannot be considered to be ‘person’ which can file a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

    On the same analogy, the appellant trust cannot file a complaint invoking the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act and as such the complaint is not maintainable. .

    The appellant trust states that the nominee of Bilasrai is Inder Karan was likely to operate the locker and requested the respondent bank not to allow him to do so without the signature of three existing trustees. It is also the case of the appellant trust that Bilasrai relinquished his trusteeship and retained the key of the locker with him. Therefore, it is seen that the trustees have been imputing the charges of fraud against one another and in that event the trustees being party to the fraud, the complaint filed by the appellant trust would not be a fit case for exercising the jurisdiction under the Consumer Protection Act as the very element of fraud had explicitly been made manifest through the letters addressed by the appellant trust to the trust bank. The appeal is liable to be dismissed for the reasons that the appellant trust is not the person entitled to file the complaint under the C.P. Act as also that all the trustees have not been made parties as the complainants as also for the reason that an allegation of fraud to have been committed by one of the trustees.

    POINTS NO.2 TO 4 In view of the discussion held under point no.1 and the complaint is held to be not maintainable, There need be no discussion under these points as the point no.1 has been decided against the appellant trust.

    In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.
  • adv.singhadv.singh Senior Member
    edited January 2010
    Complaint Case 211/2008

    Date of Institution 13-8-2008

    Date of Decision 30-11-2009


    Manish son of Sh. Sheetal Prasad Prop of M/S Yash

    Enterprises Village and Post Office Kotli, Sub Tehsil Kotli , District Mandi, H.P.
    …Complainant
    V/S

    1. M/S Saini Industries ,Near Punjab National Bank Dharamshala road at village and Post Office Gaggal, District Kangra , H.P. through its Prop. Sh.Gulshan Saini.

    2. Manager/ Prop of M/S Dua Sons Industries Estate Opposite KW Cycle Link Road , Ludhiana .

    …..Opposite parties
    For the complainant Sh. P.R.Sharma , Advocate

    For the opposite party No.1 Sh. Shyam Kumar Advocate.

    Opposite party No.2 Exparte

    Complaint under Section 12 of the

    Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
    ORDER.
    This order shall dispose of a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986( hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) instituted by the complainant against the opposite parties . The complainant averred that the opposite party No.1 advertised various self employment petty industry business in various newspapers to be started by unemployed of Himachal Pradesh for earning their livelihood and attracted by the above advertisement Annexure C-1 ,the complainant contacted the opposite party No.1 on telephone and asked for detail description and he was advised by the opposite party No.1 to install paper plates and Dona machine . Thereafter the opposite party No.1 personally visited the complainant at Mandi on 28-11-2007 and issued an invoice for installation of above Machine in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and further allured that above machine is under one year warranty against manufacturing defect. The complainant averred that he made order for supply of above machine with all accessories as mentioned in the invoice annexure C-2 and paid a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the opposite party No.1 and receipt in this regard was given on the top of invoice and assured to supply and install the machine within few days and installed the same on 9-12-2007. The complainant was issued cash memo dated 9-12-2007 bearing No.077 in the sum of Rs. 34,000/- and assured to provide the dyes and other accessories within one week and further assured to issue cash memo of balance amount of Rs.66,000/- received by the opposite party No.1 on 9-12-2007 in cash including the advance amount of Rs.10,000/- . The complainant further averred that he was also assured to issue one year warranty card of above machine . The dyes and other accessories were supplied by the opposite party No.1 within one week after 9-12-2007 and machine started functioning but on 5-1-2008, the above machine turned out of order due to some inherent manufacturing defect which was reported to the opposite party No.1 and which was repaired .Again on 12-1-2008, the machine turned out of order and after repeated requests the dye defect in the machine was again put in order but after one month the same again started giving problems which was reported to the opposite party No.1 on 25-2-2008 and on complaint the opposite party No.1 checked the other dye of Done machine which was also found defective and thereafter total machine turned out of order . A written complaint mentioning details of facts was sent to the opposite parties No.1 and No.2 for replacement of the defective machine with new one .Complaint dated 26-3-2008 was also sent to the opposite party No.1 which is Annexure C-3 and copy of cash memo of Rs.34000/- is Annexure C-4. The complainant averred that the opposite party No.1 did not bother either to replace the machine with new one or repair the same up to 26-4-2008 and in compelling circumstances legal notice was served upon the opposite party No.1 but of no avail . The complainant further averred that he had requested the opposite party No.1 telephonically to replace the machine and also to issue cash memo of balance amount of Rs.66,000/- but of no avail . The complainant further averred that the opposite party No.2 is the manufacturer of paper plate machine and as such is jointly and severally responsible to replace the machine with one .With these allegations the complainant had sought a direction to the opposite parties either to replace the defective machine with new one without any extra charges or in the alternative refund Rs.1,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% from 9-12-2007 till payment , to pay Rs.80,000/- as compensation and the cost of the complaint had also been claimed.



    2. The opposite party No.1 resisted the complaint and had raised preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable , and that this Forum has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the present complaint . The opposite party No.1 admitted the publishing of advertisement in the newspapers but denied that the complainant contacted the opposite party No.1 telephonically. It has also been denied that the opposite party No.1. visited the complainant at Mandi and issued invoice in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- inclusive of accessories . It has been submitted that the complainant came to Kangra and inquired regarding installation of paper plate machine upon which the opposite party No.1 informed him that he did not have fully automatic machine, however on his request , the opposite party No.1 offered its services to help in the purchase of machine as desired by the complainant. Initially the complainant intended to purchase the Power Press machine costing approximately Rs.1,00,000/- inclusive of all the accessories and the machine was to be supplied by the opposite party No.2 who is the manufacturer of the machine. The complainant paid Rs.10,000/ as an advance against the price of power plate machine ( automatic) without accessories . It has been denied that the complainant was allured that the machine shall carry one year warranty and rather he was made to understand that the machine did not contain any warranty. Later on the complainant changed his mind and instead of installing automatic power press paper plate machine, requested the opposite party No.1 to supply manual machine whose cost was Rs.32,000/- with no accessories which was supplied accordingly and cash memo to this effect was also issued to the complainant . The opposite party No.1 has denied that any assurance was made to the complainant either to supply dyes and other accessories and as such the question of issuance of receipt in the sum of Rs.66000/- did not arise . It has further been contended that the machine was functioning properly but mishandling of the same by the complainant had resulted in the malfunctioning and on request of the complainant same was checked and mended to his satisfaction. Receipt of the legal notice was admitted by the opposite party No.1. It has been admitted that the machine was manufactured by opposite party No.2 The opposite party No.1 had prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

    3 The opposite party No.2 did not put in appearance and was proceeded against exparte .However, a reply had been received from it by post which had been taken on record wherein the complaint has been resisted and preliminary objections have been taken that the complaint is not maintainable as there is no privity of contract between the complainant and him , that the opposite party has sold power presses to M/S Saini Industries vide invoice No.1568 dated 10-10-2007 and no guarantee was given as per Annexure R-1, that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint as the commercial transaction is involved . On merits , the opposite party No.2 has denied the contents of the complaint in toto and pleaded that there was no inherent manufacturing defect pointed out or mentioned by the complainant. The complaint has been sought to be dismissed with costs .



    4. The complainant had filed rejoinder reiterating the contents of the complaint and controverting the allegations made in the reply .



    5. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record . The case of the complainant is a that he placed an order with the opposite party No.1 for the supply of Paper plate machine with all accessories and the aforesaid machine was installed on 9-12-2007 and in this respect a cash memo in the sum of Rs.34,000/- was also given to him and he was assured to provide dyes and other accessories and cash memo of balance amount of Rs.66,000/- received by the opposite party No.1 on 9-12-2007. Further case of the complainant is that dyes and other accessories were supplied by the opposite party No.1 within a week after 9-12-2007 but the machine started developing defect immediately after its purchase on 5-1-2008. According to the complainant , the opposite party No.1 rectified the defects on various occasions but ultimately the machine started giving problems and it turned out of order due to inherent manufacturing defect. As per the complainant, the opposite party No.1 was asked on various occasions to replace the machine and also to give the cash memo of balance amount of Rs.66,000/- but he is delaying the matter on one pretext or the other . Conversely the case of the opposite party No.1 is that initially the complainant intended to purchase paper plate machine costing Rs.1,00,000/- inclusive of all the accessories but later on the complainant changed his mind and instead of installing automatic power plate machine, he requested the opposite party No.1 to supply the manual machine the cost of which was Rs.34000/- with no accessories and the same was supplied and cash memo was issued to the complainant . The opposite party No.1 had denied that any assurance was given either to provide the dyes and other accessories or he agreed to supply the same and as such the question of issuance of receipt in the sum of Rs.66,000/- did not arise . It has been stated by the opposite party No.1 that the machine is manufactured by the opposite party No.2 and the same had developed defect due to mishandling by the complainant . The case of the opposite party No.2 is that there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the opposite party No.2 as he had sold the machine in question to the opposite party No.1 and no guarantee was given . Further case of the opposite party No.2 is that there is no inherent manufacturing defect in the machine as pointed out or mentioned in the complaint by the complainant. Both the opposite parties have also contested the case on the ground that the machine has been purchased by the complainant for commercial purpose , therefore, this Forum has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint.

    6 The first question which arises for determination by this Forum is as to whether the complainant is not a “consumer” under the Act. The complainant in his complaint in para No.8 of the complaint has specifically mentioned that he was allured and motivated by the opposite party No.1 to start petty business of self employment by giving advertisements in various newspapers and thereafter the machine was supplied by the opposite party No.1 and the same was installed in the premises of the complainant. In the rejoinder, it has been mentioned by the complainant that the machine was sold , installed and services were agreed to be provided by the opposite party No.1 at Kotli after negotiation for generating self employment to the complainant being unemployed . The complainant has pressed into service copy of pamphlet Annexure C-1 of the opposite party No.1 . The opposite party No.1 has not denied the authenticity of pamphlet adduced in evidence by the complainant . In our opinion ,when it has been specifically pleaded by the complainant that he has purchased the machine for self employment , he would definitely fall under the definition of the consumer as defined in section 2(1)(d) of the Act and this Forum has jurisdiction to try and entertain the complaint.

    7 Now the next question which arises for determination by this Forum is as to what was the price of the machine in question. According to the complainant, the opposite party No.1 had supplied and installed the machine on 9-12-2007 and issued cash memo No.077 in the sum of Rs.34,000/- and dyes and other accessories were also supplied to him worth Rs.66,000/- but the opposite party No.1 failed to issue the cash memo for balance amount of Rs.66,000/- received by it in cash . However, there is only one cash memo placed on record by the complainant i.e. Annexure C-3 dated 9-12-2007 which has been issued by the opposite party No.1 in the sum of Rs.34,000/-. The opposite party No.1 had denied the supply of dyes and accessories to the complainant and the receipt of Rs.66,000/- from him . Therefore, the onus was upon the complainant to prove that he had paid Rs.66,000/- on account of dyes and accessories but he had failed to adduced any evidence in this respect . Therefore, it cannot be presumed that the opposite party No.1 had supplied dyes and accessories of the machine worth Rs.66,000/- and had not issued the cash memo as alleged by the complainant. However, it has become clear that the complainant was supplied machine by the opposite party No.1 and the opposite party No.1 had received Rs.34,000/- as price of the machine which is evident from Annexure C-3.



    8 Now the last question which arises for determination by this Forum is as to whether the machine in question supplied to the complainant is defective or not. It has not been disputed that the machine has been supplied to the complainant by the opposite party No.1 and the opposite party No.2 is the manufacturer of the same. The opposite party No.1 had not disputed that the complainant had purchased the machine from him on 9-12-2007. From the perusal of the record it has become clear that the machine developed defect for the first time on 5-1-2008 and thereafter he apprised the opposite party No.1 about its defect In this respect the complainant has placed on record letter dated 26-3-2008 annexure C-4 and legal notice Annexure C-5. The opposite party No.1 had also written letter dated 11-6-2008 Annexure C-6 and letter Annexure C-7 to the opposite party No.2 regarding defect in the machine of the complainant. Therefore, it has become clear that the machine supplied by the opposite party No.1 to the complainant is defective . According to the opposite party No.2 no warranty has ever been issued and it had neither assured nor given any warranty nor liable to replace the same and in this respect reliance has been placed by the opposite party No.2 upon the copy of Invoice Annexure R-1 wherein it has been mentioned that “ No guarantee after sale” . However in our opinion, both the opposite parties cannot escape from their liabilities because it has been proved by the complainant that the machine has developed defect immediately after its purchase . In our opinion , once the complainant has proved that the machine has developed defects, the onus shifts to the manufacturer to prove that the same did not suffer from any defect including manufacturing defect. To take this view we are fortified by the decision of Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission , New Delhi in the case titled Tata Motors Ltd vs Manoj Gadi and another 2009(1)CPC-82. The relevant portion is reproduced hereinabove:-

    In our view , onus shifts to the manufacturer to prove that the vehicle did not suffer from any defect including the manufacturing defect once the consumer proves from job cards that the vehicle was taken on large number of occasion for removing one defect or the other .

    In the present case merely by writing “ No guarantee after sale ”the opposite party No.2 cannot escape its liability because it has come on record that the opposite party No.2 is the manufacturer of the machine and the opposite party No.1 had supplied the same to the complainant. Therefore, the onus was upon the manufacturer to prove and establish that the machine did not suffer from any defect including the manufacturing defect However, no evidence has been led by the opposite party No.2 to show that the machine in question is free from any defect including the manufacturing defect. The opposite parties have failed to establish that the machine became out of order due to mishandling of the same by the complainant. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence on record on the part of the opposite parties and in view of the fact that the machine developed defect immediately after its purchase and it is out of order , we have no hesitation to conclude that the opposite parties have failed to show that the machine in question is free from manufacturing defect and ,therefore, the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to replace the same with new one .

    9 In the light of above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed and the opposite parties No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to replace the machine of the complainant with new one of same make and model within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which to pay the price of the machine i.e. Rs.34,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till realization. The opposite parties are further directed to pay Rs.2,000/- as compensation on account of harassment and Rs.1000/- as costs of litigation to the complainant.

    10 Copy of this order be supplied to the parties
    free of cost as per Rules

    11 File, after due completion be consigned to the Record Room.

    Announced
  • adv.singhadv.singh Senior Member
    edited January 2010
    Consumer Complaint No: 334/2006

    Date of presentation: 16.11.2007

    Date of decision: 30.11.2009
    Amar Singh
    … Complainant.
    Versus

    Punjab National Bank

    Through its Sr. Regional Manager and others

    …Opposite Parties.

    For the complainant: Mr. Nitesh Gangta, Advocate vice

    Mr. I.N. Mehta, Advocate.

    For the Opposite Parties: Mr. Vinu Bhasin, Advocate

    O R D E R:

    The learned counsel for the OPs-Bank, has given a statement duly reduced into writing and signed by him that in case the complainant complies with the required formalities, which includes submission of documents, illegibility with regard to the title of his property, in that event, the OPs-Bank, is ready and willing to sanction the loan to him. The learned vice counsel for the complainant, on the instruction of the original counsel, has also given a statement duly reduced into writing and signed by him that the complainant, is, ready and willing to comply with the formalities, as required by the OPs-Bank, for sanction of the loan.

    In the light of the statements of the learned counsel for the parties, duly reduced into writing and signed by them, the complaint is disposed of with a direction that the complainant shall complete the formalities, as required by the OPs-Bank, within a period of three weeks, after the date of receipt of copy of this order and on completion of the formalities, by the complainant, the OPs-Bank, shall consider the case of the complainant for sanction of the loan, within a period of two weeks. Hence, the complaint, stands disposed of in the above terms. However, the statement rendered by the learned counsel for the parties, shall also form part and parcel of this order. Their shall be no order as to the costs.

    The learned counsel for the parties undertook to collect the certified copy of this order from the office, free of cost, as per procedure. The file after due completion, be consigned to record room.
  • adv.singhadv.singh Senior Member
    edited January 2010
    Complaint no.42/19.1.2009

    Date of order: 12.11.2009.

    Sunil Kumar son of Sh. Shiv Nath, resident of H. No.7321, Gali No.9, new Shakti Nagar, Basti Jodhewal, Ludhiana 141 008.
    (Complainant)
    Vs.

    1. Punjab National Bank, Shivpuri Road, Ludhiana-141008, through its Manager

    2. Om Parkash, dealing clerk in cheque matters, Punjab National Bank, Shivpuri Road, Ludhiana-141 008.

    3. Punjab National Bank, Basti Jodhewal, Ludhiana 141008, through its Manager.



    4. Punjab National Bank, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana-141001 through its Manager.
    Opposite parties)

    COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

    Quorum:

    Sh. T.N. Vaidya, President.

    Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Member.

    Smt. Priti Malhotra, Member.



    Present:

    Sh. Vijay Kumar Kalsi Advocate for the complainant.

    Sh. Bharat Bhushan Sharma Advocate for opposite parties.



    O R D E R

    T.N. VAIDYA, PRESIDENT:

    1. Complainant has saving bank account no.3457000100322670 with Punjab National Bank, Basti Jodhewal, Ludhiana –OP No.3. One Mr. Vijay Kumar issued cheque no.291154 dated 20.8.2008 for Rs.20,000/-, drawn on Punjab National Bank, Miller Ganj, Ludhiana in favour of the complainant. Complainant deposited the said cheque on 12.11.2008 with opposite party no.1-Punjab National Bank, Shivpuri Road, Ludhiana through its clerk OP No.2-Sh. Om Parkash. He issued the receipt of the cheque. Thereafter, complainant on 17.11.2008 and repeatedly subsequent thereto made enquiry from his bank-OP No.3, but amount of the cheque so deposited, was not credited to his account. Consequently, contacted OP No.1 & 2 time and again to know about fate of the cheque. Due to non crediting amount of the cheque to his account, contacted Manager of OP No.1, who directed OP No.2 to process the cheque, but they failed to pay or process the cheque, causing great harassment to the complainant. Then approached opposite party no.4 and made written complaint, upon which was intimated by opposite party that his cheque deposited on 12.11.2008 has been lost some where in the collection record and not traceable. Thereafter, opposite party no.2 called the complainant to office of opposite party no.1 to resolve the issue and pressurized him to accept photocopy of the lost cheque, which request he declined. Thus, by not crediting amount of the cheque to his account is claimed has caused inconvenience, mental tension, agony to the complainant, due to unfair trade practice by the opposite party. Hence, this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for refund of Rs.20,000/- and sought compensation of Rs.50,000/- along with litigation cost of Rs.11,000/-.

    2. Opposite parties-Punjab National Bank on merits, controverted allegations of the complainant. However, they admitted that cheque of Rs.20,000/- was deposited by the complainant with opposite party no.1-Bank on 12.11.2008. But pleaded that account number of the complainant with Punjab National Bank-OP No.3 was 3457000100322670. But in the pay-in-slip he had given account no.3031000100322670. Said cheque was presented to clearing house. As account number written by the complainant was not correct, so, cheque was rejected by the Regional Clearing Centre of the Bank with objection “No Account”. Then officials of RCC branch contacted the complainant on his mobile no.98559-41552 as written by him in pay-in-slip. He was conveyed message either to collect his cheque or tell the correct account number but he failed to meet the requirements. Then RCC branch of the bank at Bharat Nagar Chowk, Ludhiana sent cheque and pay-in-slip along with their letter dated 4.3.2009 to opposite party no.1. Because, the cheque was presented through them and code number of that branch was written. They requested to handover the cheque to the account holder i.e. complainant. Complainant had intimated having his account in Punjab national Bank, Basti Jodhewal, Ludhiana –OP No.3. Then opposite party no.1 on 30.12.2008 wrote letter to the complainant that cheque was sent to the RCC Ludhiana for collection along with other cheques on 12.11.2008, but same is not traceable from the said Branch. He then was issued letter dated 9.1.2009 requesting to collect image of the said cheque with the assurance that the sanctity of image is equivalent to original cheque as per guidelines of Reserve Bank of India. But he failed to collect the said image. In the mean time, opposite party no.1 received original cheque along with pay-in-slip from the branch of Punjab National Bank, Bharat Nagar Chowk, Ludhiana along with letter dated 4.3.2009. Thereafter, complainant was tried to contact on his mobile which was found not functioning. Employee of opposite party no.1 also went to the house of the complainant on 25.3.2009 with the request to collect the cheque, but he did not turn up in the branch of OP No.1 to collect the cheque. After few days complainant came to the bank, but he refused to collect the cheque. So, left with no alternative except to send the original cheque along with pay-in-slip to the complainant through registered letter dated 2.4.2009. Further plea of the opposite party is that complainant had presented this very cheque earlier for payment through clearing, but the said cheque was returned not paid on 6.10.2008 with the memo “drawer’s signature incomplete”. It was thereafter that he deposited the cheque with OP No.1-Bank. So, claimed that there is no deficiency in service on their part and the complaint being false deserves dismissal.

    3. In order to prove their respective contentions, both the parties led their evidence by way of affidavits and document.

    4. We have heard the arguments addressed by the ld. counsel for the parties, gone through file, scanned the documents and other material on record.

    5. Fate of the complainant hinges on defence of the opposite party. Consequently we would outrightly prefer to refer such defence.

    6. Ex.C. 1 is photocopy of the cheque dated 20.8.2008 bearing no. 291154 for Rs.20,000/- issued in favour of Sh. Sunil Kumar. Original of this cheque undoubtedly was deposited by the complainant on 12.11.2008 with Punjab National Bank, Shivpuri Road branch, Ludhiana, as apparent from voucher Ex.C.2 dated 12.11.2008. It is not in dispute that complainant had saving bank account with Punjab National Bank, Basti Jodhewal bearing account no. 3457000100322670. The cheque was presented in Punjab National Bank, Shiv Puri Road, Ludhiana, as all the branches of the bank were online for crediting their own accounts. In this slip/voucher Ex.C.2 complainant also mentioned his mobile number as well as account number to which amount was to be credited. Complainant himself wrongly may be by mistake inadvertently or otherwise mentioned account number as 3031000100322670. Though on back page of the cheque, he had mentioned his correct account number. Probably persons dealing with the matter, took up his account number as mentioned in memorandum Ex.C.2. Therefore, it is apparent that mistake, if any, proceeded itself on part of the complainant himself. He instead of recording his correct account number in the memorandum, under which the cheque was presented to opposite party no.1 for collection and crediting the amount to his account with OP No.3, recorded wrong account number in the memorandum/pay-in slip. For this mistake, he now wants to blame the opposite parties. But we can not permit him to do so. As no person can take benefit of his own wrongs.

    7. The complainant has also tried to play trick with the Fora by suppressing material aspect. This very cheque, photocopy of which is Ex.C.1, was presented by him to his banker-OP No.3 for collection. That cheque was rejected as drawer’s signatures did not tally. Such aspect is apparent from statement of his bank account Ex.R.1 dated 7.2.2009. This shows that on 6.10.2008, his this very cheque of Rs.20,000/- bearing no.291154 was rejected as signatures of the drawer’s differed. It means, instead of getting fresh cheque from the drawer, containing his clear and full signatures as per specimen given by the drawer to the bank, he presented the same cheque with defective signatures of the drawer in another branch of the bank-OP No.1. But while doing so, mentioned wrong account number of his saving bank account to which amount was to be credited.

    8. However, on behalf of the complainant, it is argued that mistake was inadvertent and opposite party knew his account number as reflected from register of instruments processed at RCC Ex.R2, wherein his correct account number is recorded. It may be that his correct account number in that register might have been mentioned on the basis of correct number mentioned by him on the back of the cheque. But in voucher Ex.C.2 had given wrong account number which created confusion in the matter.

    9. Defence of opposite party-Bank is that original of the cheque in transit got missed and intimated complainant vide letter Ex.R.3 to obtain duplicate and vide letter Ex.R.4 asked him to collect image of the lost cheque. From letter Ex.R.6 dated 4.3.2009 apparent that complainant was intimated rejection of the cheque by RCC requiring him to mention correct number of his account. Then giving whole detail of the episode, issued registered letter Ex.R.9 dated 2.4.2009 under receipt Ex.R10 to the complainant.



    10. No doubt, cheque initially deposited by the complainant got lost in transit. But as admitted by the complainant, they required complainant to obtain its image but he failed to do so. Rejection of the lost cheque in such circumstances was not deliberate, but in fact complainant had mentioned wrong account numbering the memorandum. Moreover, complainant suppressed factum of rejection of the cheque earlier on account of drawer’s signatures mis matching. In these circumstances, we feel that opposite parties-Punjab national Bank were not negligent or deficient in rendering services to the complainant. Resultantly, finding no merit in the complaint, same stand dismissed. We leave the parties to bear their own costs. Copy of the order be made available to the parties free of costs. File be completed and consigned to record.
  • adv.singhadv.singh Senior Member
    edited February 2010
    Sir,

    On Dated 24/10/2009 at 15.29 pm I applied for withdrawn an amount of
    Rs.4000/= from my saving account (SBI A/c no. 30218584214) at PNB ATM,
    Janakpuri East, New Delhi vide Transcation no.1018.
    No amount was withdrawn from ATM Machine, but the same amount has been
    debited to my Saving account.

    I have complained to both of the banks many times but till date no action
    has been taken, a month have been passed away but the amount has not been
    credited to my account.

    Please take necessary action.

    Renu Sharma
  • adv.singhadv.singh Senior Member
    edited February 2010
    Consumer Complaint No: 52/2007

    Date of presentation: 01.06.2007

    Date of decision: 30/12/2009

    @Sh. G.S. Bholla, S/o Sh. Sadhu Singh,

    Proprietor of M/s Indian Punjab Satkar Transport Chandigarh, (I.P.S.T.C.) SCF No. 1029, New Motor Market near Masjid Mani Majra Chandigarh U.T.
    Versus

    M/s Punjab National Bank, Nalagarh,

    Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan H.P.

    Through its Branch Manager.
    …Opposite Party.
    For the complainant: Mr. Ram Rattan, Advocate.

    For the Opposite Party: Mr. Sudhir Gupta, Advocate.

    O R D E R:

    Sureshwar Thakur (District Judge) President:- The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, by invoking the provisions of Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant, avers that, he is holder of a saving bank account bearing No.1459, with the OP-Bank. He avers that he was having balance of Rs.1,47,950/- in his aforesaid account, in the month of May, 2005, when in order to withdraw some amount, he had signed five cheques bearing No.30601, 30602, 30603, 30604 and 30605, hence, while going from Chandigarh to Nalagarh, misplaced the aforesaid cheques and intimation was given to the OP-Bank, vide letter dated 04.05.2005 regarding stop payment. The complainant further proceeded to aver that, on 31.05.2005, when he visited the OP-Bank, for withdrawing the cash, it was revealed that cheque No.30601, 30602 and 30603 has been encashed despite the fact that intimation to stop the payment of these cheque were duly given to the OP-Bank, hence, the OP-Bank, has caused him loss of Rs.1,47,950/-. Hence, it is averred that there is apparent deficiency in service on the part of the OP-Bank and accordingly relief to the extent as detailed in the relief clause be awarded in favour of the complainant.

    2. The OP-Bank, in its written version, to the complaint, submitted that at no point of time, till date the complainant was having a balance of Rs.1,49,950/-, in his account including in the month of May, 2005. The signing of three cheque bearing No.30601, 30602 and 30603, are not denied. It is denied that the letter dated 04.05.2005 with a request to stop the payment was ever received and that their officials wee requested to stop the payment teleph9ncally. It is denied that he has suffered loss of Rs.1,47,950/-. Hence, it is denied, that, there was any deficiency in service on their part or that they have indulged in an unfair trade practice.

    3. Thereafter, the parties adduced evidence, by way of affidavits, and, documents in support of their respective, contentions.

    4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also thoroughly scanned the entire record of the case.

    5. The complainant, is, aggrieved by the act of the OP-Bank, in, not stopping the payment of cheque bearing No.30601, 30602 & 30603, notwithstanding, the, fact that, letter dated 04.05.2005, was sent to them, beside, the endorsement of “or bearer’ having been deleted therefrom, hence, causing him, loss to the tune of Rs.1,47,000/- by way of encashment of the aforesaid cheques. However, the OP-Bank, has repudiated the claim of the complainant, inasmuch, as, it had denied the receipt of letter dated 04.05.2005, whereby request, for, stopping the payment of the aforesaid cheques was, made to them, hence, is, exculpating, its, liability.

    6. Assuming that, letter dated 04.05.2005, Annexure-F, so sent to the OP-Bank, by the complainant through UPC post, Annexure-G, stopping the payment of the purported cheque, even if not received by it, as averred in the reply, even then, it was incumbent upon the OP-Bank, to have not released the proceeds of the said cheques, to its bearer, for, the reason, that, the word “or bearer” was struck off from the cheque and the striking of the endorsement ‘or bearer’ was not initialed. Therefore, when it, engenders, a, bona suspicion, regarding the, genuineness of the purported striking ‘off’, the, endorsement of ‘or bearer’, for lack of the said scoring ‘off’ not having being initialed by the complainant, the, act of the OP-Bank, in proceeding, to, contrary, to, his command, against releasing payment to the bearer, as also, when, for, reasons aforesaid the purported cheque smacked of suspicion, as such, caused loss to him. Moreover, the purported cheques were of ‘self’ and was not issued in the name of the person, as such, it was also incumbent upon the OP-Bank, to have, also, not delivered, its, proceeds, to, the bearer, when the cheques were comprising huge sums. Therefore, the act of the OP-Bank, in delivering the proceeds of the purported cheques, contrary, to, his, command, tantamounts both, to, a deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice.

    7. The result of the above discussion, is, that the complainant filed by the complainant is bonafide and deserves to be allowed. Consequently, we allow this complaint and direct the OP-Bank, to give credit of Rs.1,47,000/-, i.e. the money comprised in the purported cheques, along with interest as, is, permissible under saving bank account with effect from the date of defrayment of the proceeds of the aforesaid cheques, till, actual payment is made. In addition to this, the OP-Bank, is, also burdened with litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- payable to the complainant. This order shall be complied with by the OP-Bank, within a period of forty five days, after the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which it shall also be liable to pay punitive damages of Rs.10,000/-. In the above terms the complaint stands disposed of. The learned counsel for the parties undertook to collect the certified copy of this order from the office, free of cost, as per rules. The file after due completion, be consigned to record room.
  • adv.singhadv.singh Senior Member
    edited February 2010
    C.C.No:85/2009

    BETWEEN:

    Nynala Kotaiah,

    S/o Bapaiah,

    Cultivation,

    R/o Inamanamelluru Village,

    Maddipadu Mandal,

    Prakasam District.

    ... Complainant.

    Vs.

    The Branch Manager,

    Punjab National Bank,

    Addanki Bus Stand,

    Ongole. …Opposite party


    COUNSEL FOR COMPLAINANT : SRI D. KRISHNA MOHAN.

    ADVOCATE, ONGOLE.


    COUNSEL FOR OPPOSITE PARTY : SRI B. RAMALINGAM,

    ADVOCATE, ONGOLE.


    This complaint is coming on 05.01.2010 for final hearing before us and having stood over this day for consideration this Forum delivered the following:

    Per:SRI A. PRABHAKAR GUPTA, MEMBER:

    ORDER:



    1. This is a complaint filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite party.



    2. The case of the complainant is that he obtained an Agricultural Loan against the security of the Gold Ornament from the opposite party bank under loan account no.P.A.58827 for Rs.31,600/- on 07.02.2007. Later the Government of India introduced an Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme 2008 to give some benefit to the formers and the implementation of the scheme had been extended up to 28.02.2008. With the rules and regulations of the scheme, the present complainant is entitled for waiver of entire loan account. Basing on the said scheme the complainant submitted a representation to the opposite parties and the opposite party not given any benefit under the scheme to the complainant. The complainant further mentioned stated that on 15.03.2007 he also obtained another similar loan from the Indian Bank, Ongole Branch and the said bank waived the entire amount and issued a certificate to that effect. Subsequently on 23.02.2009 the complainant issued a legal notice to the opposite party requesting him to close his account. Instead of closing the account, the opposite party made demands on complainant for payment of the due amount without giving any reply notice to his legal notice. Hence, the complaint.



    3. In reply to the complaint the opposite party filed his counter stating that as per the terms and conditions of the said scheme the complainant has to borrow the loan amount on or before 31.03.2007 and it should be falls as a over due account as on 31.12.2007 and remain un paid till 29.02.2008. Since the loan of the complainant not attracted the terms and conditions of the scheme as the loan not over due as on date of the scheme i.e., 31.12.2007, they are not given the benefit to the complainant and requested the fora to dismiss the complaint.



    4. On behalf of the complainant Ex.A1 to A3 were marked. Ex.A1 is the legal notice dated 20.03.2009 to the opposite party by the complainant. Ex.A2 is the postal acknowledgment. Ex.A3 is the Xerox copy Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme 2008 sanctioned letter.



    5. On behalf of the opposite party Ex.B1 to B6 were marked. Ex.B1 is the Debt Relief Scheme 2008, issued to the M.D., Scheduled Commercial Bank by the Manager, Punjab National Bank. Ex.B2 is the Xerox copy of particulars of Agricultural Debt Relief Scheme 2008. Ex.B3 is the letter dated 30.05.2008 to the Sr. Manager, Punjab National Bank by the Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank. Ex.B4 is the Limit Proposal-against Bullion & Jewellery issued by the opposite party regarding to the complainant’s loan. Ex.B5 is the attested copy of demand promissory note dated 07.02.2007 executed by the complainant. Ex.B6 is the Application cum Agreement for loan against Security of Gold Ornaments/articles.



    6. The point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed in the complaint?



    7. The learned counsel for the complainant argued that according to Ex.B1 the interest on loan amount has to be calculated half yearly rests. In default of payment of interest the amount under interest to be added to principle amount and became as a principle amount, for calculation of interest for further period. So, the time of over due has to be calculated as six months and the complainant is entitled for the benefits under the scheme. Further he argued that the another loan obtained by the complainant which is having similar nature from another bank was given the scheme benefits and another bank issued a certificate to that effect. Further argued that the present opposite party bank also a Nationalized Bank. The effect of scheme to be same to each and every bank since the scheme has been introduced by the Government of India and implemented by the Reserve Bank of India. So, he attributed the deficiency in the service of the opposite party and prayed this forum to grant reliefs as mentioned in the complaint.



    8. The advocate for opposite party argued that the loan was taken on 07.02.2007 and it is not falls as over due account or NPA account as on 31.12.2007 and in general usage the bank calculated the over due time as one year. Further he argued that even though the sanctioned loan is an agricultural loan, it is a demand loan. Since, the loan is a demand loan, the over due period to be calculated from the date of demand made by the bank. The calculation of interest for half yearly rest is not a criteria to confirm the loan under the category of over due account. As the loan of the complainant not attracted by the scheme they are not given the benefits and there is no deficiency on their part and requested the forum to dismiss the present complaint.



    9. On hearing both sides and with the strength of documents available it is an admitted fact that the complainant obtained a Gold loan from the opposite party bank which is having a nature of Agriculture. Further it is also admitted fact that the loan was taken on 07.02.2007 i.e., before 31.03.2007 which is one of the condition of the scheme. There is no dispute with these facts. Now the discussing point is whether the said loan comes under the category of over due account or NPA account are not?



    10. On seeing of the Ex.A2, which is issued by another bank in connection with closure and similar natural account implemented the scheme. Ex.A2 is not containing the date of sanction of the loan. The said loan was taken by the complainant on 15.03.2007 is not supported by any authenticated document except mentioning in Ex.A1 i.e., legal notice issued by the complainant. So, we could not take as a precedent for the waiver made by another bank to decide the present case. On seeing the Ex.B2 which is the terms and conditions of the scheme it is clearly mentioned that under clause 4 (1)(a) the loan should be disbursed up to 31 March, 2007 and should be over due on 31st December, 2007 and remained un paid till 29th February, 2008. Those loans are alone eligible for grant of benefit under the scheme. Admittedly the complainant obtained a loan on 07.02.2007 i.e., with in the stipulated period of scheme and also it remained unpaid till 29th February, 2008. So, these two conditions of the schemes were fulfilled. Coming to the another condition i.e., falling of over due amount the opposite party filed Exs.B6 and B5 which are application-Cum- agreement and promissory note. Both the documents are not containing any stipulation of period for re-payment of loan amount and having the nature of demand loan. When, once we confirm the nature as a demand loan the over due of account to be treated after demand only. In the present case no demand was made by the opposite party.


    11. Further, the Ex.A6 containing the payment of interest at 9.75% with half yearly rests. This clause is not a ground to confirm the period of payment as six months and in the absence of payment of interest or principle is not a source to confirm the nature as a overdue account or NPA account. So, this forum not accepted the version of complainant and not taken the Ex.A2 as a precedent since the Ex.A2 not containing the date of sanction or date of over due. As the opposite party bank applied the terms and conditions of the scheme in connection with the loan of the complainant, this fora feels that there is no deficiency on their part.

    12. In the result, the complaint dismissed with out costs.
  • ramviryadav45ramviryadav45 Junior Member
    edited March 2011
    Dear sir/Madam

    I am Customer of PNB. Acct No 0328000100418450 of PNB Morar Gwalior Madhya Pradesh.
    On Date of 13.02.2011 Automatic some amount has been deducted from my saving a/c no.
    0328000100418450.
    Deduct amount was
    1). Rs. 418
    2). Rs. 408
    3). Rs. 618

    After that I complaint in Punjab national bank by mail to
    1). Sudeshna Sharma" <ssharma@pnb.co.in>,
    2). "BO: Morar Gwalior" <bo0328@pnb.co.in>,
    3). "CO: Bhopal" <cobpl@pnb.co.in>,
    4). "Rajender Prasad" <rp.sharma@pnb.co.in>,
    5). "Rajinder Kumar Sharma" <rk_sharma@pnb.co.in>,
    But i did not get any reference from them to till date.

    Kindly do the needful


    Regards
    Ramvir Yadav
    Mob No:- +91-9930713825
  • ermukesh009ermukesh009 Junior Member
    edited June 2011
    Respected Sir/Madam,

    My name is Mukesh Sachdeva and my father Mr. Varinder Sachdeva wrote a letter to The Regional Manager, PNB Bank, Chandigarh and The Branch Manager,DAV College branch, Jagadhri Gate,PNB Bank,Ambala City on 18th march, 2011 on behalf of my grand mother Smt. Raj Rani Sachdeva. He wrote in that letter about his mother Smt. Raj Rani Sachdeva's pension account.Her PNB account number is 3931000300052154.She had been getting pension Ex -Gratia from Northern Railway of Rs 605 as B.P. + 182 as D.A. before 1/1/2006 and pension of Rs. 4382 from January, 2006 till August, 2010 and Rs. 4200 from September, 2010 till December, 2010. Then PNB froze her account in Jan 2011. PNB recovered the sum of Rs 3,323, Rs1, 18,000 and Rs 71,548 on 08/01/2011, 17/01/2011 and 22/02/2011 respectively. According to PNB, she was paid almost Rs. 3595 per month in excess since January, 2006. It is hard for us to accept the fact that bank made such an enormous mistake month after month for almost five full years. Bank started making payment in the amount of Rs. 4382 from September, 2008 and paid arrears from January, 2006 till August, 2008. In that letter we requested them to provide the letter from Railway pension department which led PNB to pay her Rs. 4382 starting January, 2006 and then revert back to Rs. 787 starting January, 2011.


    My grand mother is an elderly widow. She has been saving money for the surgery of her kidney stones. She has multiple health issues and she frequently visits doctors for arthritis of her knees and shoulders. Recently she got sick with pneumonia and she was in hospital for about a week. When we came to withdraw money from bank, we were refused the payment. Moreover, when we tried to cash joint FD in the amount of Rs. 71,548 drawn in favor of my father and my grand mother, we were misguided and told that FD could not be cashed and made us deposit that FD into my grand mother's pension account and after depositing that FD into her account they recovered the whole amount on the same day without even letting us know the balance recovery amount. Moreover, when they recovered the whole amount (and her account was almost nil), the bank manager was not even interested in listening to us and said he is very busy and if we need any help in that matter we can opt for legal option. That FD had nothing to do with my grand mother's account and whether bank had any right to deposit that FD into my grand mother's account. We trusted their bank and they took our money which was saved for the rainy day.

    We requested them to send us a proof of her actual pension amount, the above said FD be cashed and my grand mother's account be reinstated with full balance. Even if the bank made an error, does the bank unilaterally hold the right to decide to freeze her account and leave my elderly grand mother with no money she was depending on so heavily?

    The PNB did not respond to our letter till now.Then on 5th May, 2011 we decided to get the information from PNB under RTI Act. My Grand mother wrote a letter under RTI Act to Public Information officer, Punjab National Bank, DAV College Branch, Ambala City asking them to provide us


    a) the certified copy of F.D.R. amounting to Rs.71, 548 which was transferred in account of Smt.Raj Rani Sachdeva on 22-02-2011 with full particulars since the FDR was initially registerd and any document attached with the same. The said F.D.R. was in the joint name of Raj Rani Sachdeva & Varinder Sachdeva.


    b) And on what behalf that FDR was transferred to above said account no.


    c) certified copies of letter/circulars issued by Northern Railway (pension Department) or concerned department which led PNB to pay Rs. 4382/- starting January,2006 August, 2010 and Rs. 4200 from

    September, 2010 till December, 2010 and then revert back to Rs. 787/-starting January, 2011 i.e. the pension to the applicant, as the P.P.O number of the applicant is NR/89/3355 dated 1.5.1989(Raj Rani Sachdeva widow of Dharam Pal Sachdeva DOB-07-08-1927).


    Then on 18-05-2011 we received the reply from PNB. In which they replied that they are not authorized to provide the information under RTI act and we might get the information from their CPI officer.They also returned our application.


    My grand mother sent that RTI application on 5th May, 2011 to public information officer to provide information pertaining to her PNB account which was returned by PNB Manager, DAV College Branch, Ambala City stating that they were not authorized to provide information under RTI act whereas we come to know that all the branches have been authorized to receive application under Right to information act, 2005 and forward to the concerned CPIO for final disposal.


    Please help us in reinstating my grand mother's Punjab national bank account.On 4th June, 2011, PNB branch manager, D AV College Branch, A/city (Mr. T. R. Khurana) refused to provide us the acknowledgment or refusal of RTI letter which my grandmother wrote to Central Public information officer and he refused to receive that application whereas we come to know that all the branches have been authorized to receive application under Right to information act, 2005 and forward to the concerned CPIO for final disposal. Even he talked very harsh to us in front of two persons. I again request you to please help us how we can get our money back from PNB.My grandmother is very old and sick lady.She can not even walk without walker. She saved that money for rainy days.Now she needs that money for her health reasons which PNB recovered without giving us a notice.


    Now, My grand mother has sent that RTI application on 4th June, 2011 to central public information officer, PNB House, sector 17-B, Chandigarh to provide information pertaining to her PNB account and we have not got any response till now.



    I also wrote a letter on 18th march, 2011 to CAO Northern Railway on behalf of my grand mother Smt. Raj Rani Sachdeva. In that letter I wrote that She had been getting pension Ex -Gratia Rs 605 as B.P. + 182 as D.A. before 1/1/2006 and in the sum of Rs. 4382 per month from Punjab National Bank, DAV College, Ambala City from January, 2006 till August, 2010. From September, 2010 till December, 2010 PNB reduced her pension amount to Rs. 4200 per month. In January, 2011 PNB froze her account because of excess pension paid. It is hard to accept the fact that bank made such an enormous mistake. We never received any letter from Pension Department about her actual pension amount after Jan 2006.In that letter I requested them to please advise us whether it is to be revised w.e.f. 1/1/2006 and at which rate or what amount to be paid and please write us and PNB about her revised pension amount. As per 6th Pay commission no instruction has been issued to us.

    The pension department did not respond to our letter.

    I request you to please help me in cashing that FD and reinstating my grand mother's account.Please guide me how can we get back our money from PNB. I shall be thankful to you for this.


    Thanking you in advance,


    Mukesh Sachdeva (ermukesh009 at gmail dot com)

    Email-ermukesh009@gmail.com

    Ph- 91-9050539495
  • ermukesh009ermukesh009 Junior Member
    edited June 2011
    Respected Seniors,

    Please help us in reinstating my grand mother's PNB account.Please help..............................................................................................

    Thanks & Regards,

    Mukesh Sachdeva
  • ermukesh009ermukesh009 Junior Member
    edited June 2011
    Respected Seniors,

    Please help us .............................................. ................................................

    Thanks & Regards,

    Mukesh Sachdeva
  • ermukesh009ermukesh009 Junior Member
    edited June 2011
    Default

    Respected Seniors,

    Please help us in reinstating my grand mother's PNB account.Please help.............................................. ................................................

    Thanks & Regards,

    Mukesh Sachdeva
  • krishan lal gahlotkrishan lal gahlot Junior Member
    edited February 2012
    Subject: FRAUD CHEQUE ISSUE CASE
    We issued a cheque for Rs.150000 No. 668709 dated:-09/03/2011 to M/s SHARDA SHOE COMPONENTS,New Delhi.This was a crossed cheque.But the cheque has been encashed to Anil Kumar who has a saving account in Bank of India,Branch Murthal,District Sonepat with Micr Code 110013103.Account of Anil Kumar is 672410310000207 opened on 5/03/2011 for forgery encashment of cheques. My PNB Account is in Branch-- Kesar Ganj Ludhiana and Account No.:- 0281002100037921.
    Thanking you,
    Regards,
    Krishan Lal
    Gahlot Leather Store,9316912002
  • edited May 2012
    Sir i can tell my name. but its my humble request that you employer of punjab national bank Binpalke(Jeet Lal Bhatti) is wondring in the elections of Bhogpur nagar panchayat. he is going to subbmitt form of his Son From ward no4 and his wife from ward number 5 he is wondering before and after and also in the time of duty while lunch please its my request that his transfer musg be at anyother distt he is living in bhogpur and doing job in bhogpur if u will take action about my complaint i will very thnkfull to you for this
  • edited May 2012
    dear sir,
    it's not a complain...i have some queries ,pls help me...

    sir my father ,was employee at punjab national bank. he was district co-ordinator .
    he retired in year 2008. he used t get his regular pension.
    in year 2012 in month of april he died because of natural death.

    now in my family , members are
    my mother---age 55 year
    myself --age 23 year
    three sister--- eldest age 31 year(married), second is 26 year age(married), youngest is 20 year old( not married)

    kindly do tell me, is my mother and youngest sister eligible to get pension. and if yes ,what percent of my father pension amount will they get.

    kindly help me...
    thanks
Sign In or Register to comment.