Haryana

Sonipat

106/2013

GULSHON RAI - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. THE BRANCH MANAGER UCO BANK,2. THE BRANCH MANAGER THE SONEPAT CO OP BANK LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

M.S. YUVIKA

19 Oct 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

               

 

                                Complaint No.106 of 2013

                                Instituted on:20.02.2013

                                Date of order:19.10.2015

 

Gulshan Rai Bathla-Prop. Samta Automobiles, near General Hospital, Sonepat.

                                                     ...Complainant.

 

                        Versus

 

1.The Branch Manager, UCO Bank, Branch Kundli, Distt. Sonepat.

2.The Branch Manager, Sonepat Urban Co-op. Bank Ltd., Distt. Sonepat.

3.HDFC Bank Clearing House, 209-214, 26 KG Marg, 2^nd Floor, Kailash Building, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001.

4.UCO Bank Clearing House, 5, Parliament Street, New Delhi-110001.

                                    

                                                     ...Respondents.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Ms. Yuvika, Adv. for complainant.

           Shri Umesh Dahra, Adv. for respondent no.1.

           Shri Ashok Jain, Adv. for respondent no.2.

           Shri Varinder Singh Sr Manager, HDFC Bank/respondent no.3.

           Respondent no.4 ex-parte on 21.09.2015.

 

 

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 the complainant is having bank account no.03180510000014 with the respondent no.1. Hari Om Automobile Ganaur is a sub dealer of Hero Honda and used to purchased the goods from the complainant and the said firm has issued a cheque bearing no.306352 dated 24.11.2008 out of his account maintained by him with the respondent no.2 for Rs.2 lacs in favour of the complainant. The complainant on 27.11.2008 has presented the said cheque with the respondent no.1 and after a sufficient period, when the cheque was not credited in the complainant’s account, he approached the respondent no.1 and then he came to know that the amount has been debited from the account of sub dealer, but the same was not credited in the complainant’s account.   The complainant met the respondent no.1 and made representations, but of no use and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        The respondents no.1 and 2 have appeared through their respective counsel and have filed their written statement separately.

          The respondent no.1 in its written statement has denied the facts as alleged by the complainant in his complaint.  The complainant lodged the cheque with UCO Bank Kundli Branch on 26.11.2008 and lateron the cheque was returned to him on 26.11.2008.  The complainant is not deliberately disclosing the name of the bank where he lodged the said cheque on 27.11.2008.   The respondent no.2 had only replied that the amount of Rs.2 lacs was paid in clearing house on 27.11.2008, but it has not been mentioned in which bank the payment was credited.   The complainant is not entitled to get any relief against the respondent no.1 since there is no deficiency in service on their part and has, thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

          The respondent no.2 in its written statement has submitted that cheque no.306352 of Rs.2 lacs has been issued by Hari Om Automobiles in favour of Samta Automobiles on 24.11.2008. As per statement of account of M/s Hari Om Automobiles, the amount of Rs.2 lacs was paid in clearing house on 27.11.2008 and payment was made to clearing house by the respondent no.2 on the same day.  The respondent no.2 made the payment to clearing house and payment has been received by transfer in clearing house against this cheque and thereafter, the matter remained between the clearing house and respondent no.1.  The respondent no.2 has already made the payment to clearing house and thus, it  cannot be said that there is any negligence on the part of the respondent no.2 and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

          The respondent no.3 in its written statement has submitted that on 3.12.2008 the respondent no.1 raised their claims through RBI return clearing Zone-2 and their claims were duly honoured by the respondent no.3 on 4.12.2008. the present complaint is vexatious since it makes false and frivolous allegations against the respondent no.3.   There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.3 and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

          The respondent no.4 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 21.09.2015.

3.        We have heard the ld. Counsel for both the parties at length and has gone through the entire relevant material available on the case file carefully & minutely.

4.        Ld. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that Hari Om Automobile Ganaur is a sub dealer of Hero Honda and used to purchased the goods from the complainant and the said firm has issued a cheque bearing no.306352 dated 24.11.2008 out of his account maintained by him with the respondent no.2 for Rs.2 lacs in favour of the complainant. The complainant on 27.11.2008 has presented the said cheque with the respondent no.1 and after a sufficient period, when the cheque was not credited in the complainant’s account, he approached the respondent no.1 and then he came to know that the amount has been debited from the account of sub dealer, but the same was not credited in the complainant’s account.   The complainant met the respondent no.1 and made representations, but of no use and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.

          Ld. Counsel for the respondent  no.1 has submitted that the complainant lodged the cheque with UCO Bank Kundli Branch on 26.11.2008 and lateron the cheque was returned to him on 26.11.2008.  The complainant is not deliberately disclosing the name of the bank where he lodged the said cheque on 27.11.2008.   The respondent no.2 had only replied that the amount of Rs.2 lacs was paid in clearing house on 27.11.2008, but it has not been mentioned in which bank the payment was credited.   The complainant is not entitled to get any relief against the respondent no.1 since there is no deficiency in service on their part.

          Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.2 has also submitted that  cheque no.306352 of Rs.2 lacs has been issued by Hari Om Automobiles in favour of Samta Automobiles on 24.11.2008. As per statement of account of M/s Hari Om Automobiles, the amount of Rs.2 lacs was paid in clearing house on 27.11.2008 and payment was made to clearing house by the respondent no.2 on the same day.  The respondent no.2 made the payment to clearing house and payment has been received by transfer in clearing house against this cheque and thereafter, the matter remained between the clearing house and respondent no.1.  The respondent no.2 has already made the payment to clearing house and thus, it  cannot be said that there is any negligence on the part of the respondent no.2.

          Ld. Counsel for respondent no.3 has submitted that  on 3.12.2008 the respondent no.1 raised their claims through RBI return clearing Zone-2 and their claims were duly honoured by the respondent no.3 on 4.12.2008. the present complaint is vexatious since it makes false and frivolous allegations against the respondent no.3.   There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.3.

          After hearing learned counsel for both the parties at length and after going through the entire relevant records available on the case file very carefully, we have come to the conclusion that it is the respondent no.1 who is deficient in his services. The respondent no.2 made the payment to clearing house and payment has been received by transfer in clearing house against the cheque in question and thereafter, the matter remained between the clearing house and respondent no.1.  The respondent no.2 has already made the payment to clearing house.  So, non-credit of the amount of Rs.2 lacs in the account of the complainant amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.1 and 4.  Thus, we hereby direct the respondent no.1 and 4 to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.20,000/- (Rs.twenty thousands) for rendering deficient services, harassment and under the head of litigation expenses.  Further the respondent no.1 and 4 are directed to credit the amount of Rs.2 lacs in the account of the complainant and also to pay interest at the saving rate w.e.f. 27.11.2008 till realization.

          With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed qua respondent no.1 and 4 since we find no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.2&3.

          Certified copy of this order be provided to both the parties free of costs.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

(Prabha Wati)        (DV Rathi)                 (Nagender Singh-President)

Member DCDRF        Member DCDRF                   DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced: 19.10.2015.