Haryana

Sonipat

CC/150/2015

GORDHAN SHARMA S/O DULICHAND SHARMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK - Opp.Party(s)

JYOTI SHARMA

03 Dec 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SONEPAT.

                                                      

                                    Complaint No.150 of 2015

                                    Instituted on:7.5.2015

                                    Date of order:11.12.2015

 

Gordhan Sharma son of Duli Chand Sharma, r/o VPO Shamri Sisan, tehsil Gohana, distt. Sonepat.

     …….Complainant

                   VERSUS

 

1.Punjab National Bank  Sansad Marg, New Delhi through its Branch Manager.

2.Punjab National Bank,  Old Bus Stand, Gohana through its Branch Manager.

  ……..Respondents.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Ms. Jyoti Sharma, Adv. for complainant.

           Sh. Manoj Kumar, Adv. for respondent no.1.

Sh. Sardar Singh Senior Manager on behalf of Respondent no.2.

 

BEFORE-   Nagender Singh, President.

          Smt. Prabha Wati, Member.

          D.V. Rathi, Member.

 

O R D E R

 

        Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging therein that he is having saving bank account no.0667000100252845 with respondent no.2 who has issued a cheque book no.131024002 to the complainant.  On 28.8.2014 the complainant alongwith cheque no.425388 amounting to Rs.1,50,000/- visited the respondent no.2 for withdraw of the said amount through cheque.  But the respondent no.1 refused to make the payment of the said cheque on the pretext that the respondent no.2 had stopped payment to withdraw from the complainant’s account.  However, after 3-4 hours the respondent no.1 make the payment of the said cheque. The complainant was in need of money for the purpose of sale deed, but due to the respondent no.1, the complainant got delayed and he suffered financial loss of Rs.50,000/- and all this has happened due to deficient services rendered by the respondents.  So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.       The respondent no.1 and 2 appeared and has filed their written statement separately.

         The respondent no.1 in its reply has submitted that a cheque no.425388 amounting to Rs.1,50,000/- was presented in the branch of the respondent no.1 on 29.8.2014(not on 28.8.2014) and the same was duly encashed at 11.55 am on the same day. There was no unreasonable delay in making the payment of the said cheque.  The complainant has not suffered any mental agony or harassment at the hands of the respondent no.1.

         The respondent no.2 in its reply has taken almost the same and similar pleas as has been taken by the respondent no.1 in its reply.

3.       We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for both the parties at length and have also gone through the entire relevant material available on the case file very carefully.

4.       Ld.counsel for the complainant has submitted that after 3-4 hours of presentation of the cheque, the respondent no.1 make the payment of the cheque in question. The complainant was in need of money for the purpose of sale deed, but due to the respondent no.1, the complainant got delayed and he suffered financial loss of Rs.50,000/- and all this has happened due to deficient services rendered by the respondents.

         Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.1 has submitted that a cheque no.425388 amounting to Rs.1,50,000/- was presented in the branch of the respondent no.1 on 29.8.2014(not on 28.8.2014) and the same was duly encashed at 11.55 am on the same day. There was no unreasonable delay in making the payment of the said cheque.  The complainant has not suffered any mental agony or harassment at the hands of the respondent no.1.

         In the present case, the complainant is aged about 80 years old and he approached the respondent no.2 for withdrawal of Rs.1,50,000/- at 10 am on 29.8.2014.  But as per the respondent, the cheque of the complainant was cleared at 11.55 am.  In our view, the complainant was unnecessary made to sit for about two hours.  Further the document

Ex.R-1/4 shows that there was a flag of official liquidator on the account of the complainant.  But why this flat of official liquidator was affixed on the account of the complainant, there is nothing on record to prove the same. In our view, there is deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.1 as they unnecessarily made the complainant to sit for about two hours.  The complainant is a senior citizen aged about 80 years of age.  The complainant must have been given due respect being the senior citizen.  Thus, we hereby direct the respondent no.1 to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.2000/- (Rs.two thousand) for rendering deficient service, for harassment and under the head of litigation expenses. The present complaint, thus, stands allowed.

         Certified copies of order be provided to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record-room.

 

(Prabha Devi-Member)    (D.V.Rathi)         (Nagender Singh-President)

DCDRF, Sonepat.      DCDRF, Sonepat.      DCDRF Sonepat.

 

Announced 11.12.2015