Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/745/2013

Rajat Grover S/o Ramesh Chand - Complainant(s)

Versus

Allahabad Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Sultan Singh

22 Jun 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR AT JAGADHRI.

 

                                                                                    Complaint No. 745 of 2013.

                                                                                    Date of institution: 08.10.2013

                                                                                    Date of decision: 22.06.2017.

 

Rajat Grover, aged about 31 years, son of Shri Ramesh Chand, Proprietor Net Computers, 2107, Srinagar Colony, Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                                                …Complainant.

                                    Versus

Allahabad Bank, Branch Srinagar Colony, Jagadhri through its Branch Manager.

 

                                                                                    …Respondent.  

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT.

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

                        SMT. VEENA RANI SHEOKAND, MEMBER

 

 

Present:           Shri Sultan Singh, Advocate for complainant

Shri VK Rajoria, Advocate for OP.

 

ORDER (ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT)

 

1.                     The present complaint has been filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the respondent (hereinafter referred as OP).

2.                     Brief facts, as alleged in the complaint, are that complainant is proprietor of M/s Net Computers and is running his business in the name and style of Net Computer. The complainant has a bank account bearing No.50153041462 in his firm’s name i.e. M/s Net Computers. This account is being operated by the complainant and sometimes the account is operated by his younger brother Parvesh Grover. It has been further mentioned that the complainant issued a cheque bearing No.868410 from his account on dated 24.09.2013 for a sum of Rs.43,300/- in favour of Park Net Work Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon and the drawee i.e. Park Net Work Pvt. Ltd. presented the said cheque in his bank i.e. Union Bank of India, Gurgaon for encashment on 25.09.2013 and the cheque was sent to the OP Bank for encashment but the cheque was dishonoured on 26.09.2013 by the OP Bank for the reason of insufficient funds whereas on 26.09.2013, there was sufficient fund in the account of complainant i.e. a sum of Rs.54,267/- was available in the account of the complainant, but the OP Bank due to his negligence and carelessness has returned the cheque with the reasons in sufficient fund and charged Rs.200/- from the complainant on account of Bank charges. Upon which younger brother of the complainant Mr. Parvesh Grover contacted the Manager of the OP Bank who not only misbehaved with him but insulted him and instead of tendering apology threatened for dire consequences and asked Mr. Parvesh Grover to leave the Branch or to close his account from the bank. Hence, there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP bank and lastly prayed for directing the OP to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.80,000/-  and also to pay litigation expenses.

3.                     Upon notice, OP Bank appeared and filed its written statement taking some preliminary objections such as: complaint is not maintainable as there is no deficiency in service or negligence on the part of the OP Bank; complainant is estopped from filing the present complaint by his own act and conduct, complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint, complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands and on merit it has been submitted that one Rajesh Grover alleged himself as Proprietor of M/s Net Computers, Jagadhri has served a false and frivolous notice through is counsel dated 31.10.2013 which was replied on 14.11.203.  However, it has been admitted that Rajat Grover is proprietor of M/s Net Computers and is having account in the OP Bank. It has been further mentioned that as a mater of fact Bank has proceeded in the transaction as per rules and regulation, cheque of the account holder Shri Rajat Grover was returned dishonoured as there was no sufficient funds in the account of M/s Rajat Grover Net Computers. The following fact will clear all the situation that complainant want to take benefit of his own wrongs: -

“Complainant deposited cheque of Rs.15000/- in his account on 24.09.2013 in the after lunch session. Before depositing the cheque, there was balance of Rs.26494/- (Credit Balance) in the account of the complainant. Since the cheque was deposited in the after lunch session, hence it could not be processed for clearing on the same day. It was submitted for clearing on the next day i.e. on 25.09.2013. Cheque can be returned unpaid/dishonoured by the clearing house on the same day of presentation and /or on the next day of presentation of the cheque in the clearing house. However, as per the Banking Practice, a shadow credit balance is shown in the account of the depositor for which effects are cleared on 2^nd day after presentation of the cheque in the clearing house. In the present case, since the cheque was presented in clearing house on 25.09.2013 and hence its clear credit (effects cleared)was given in the account on 26.09.2013. The cheque was deposited in the clearing through Allahabad Bank, Service Branch, Delhi for Rs.43300/- on 26.09.2013. Since the actual balance/clear balance on 26.9.2013 was only Rs.37349/- (i.e. total balance Rs.52349/- ¼ unclear effects/cheque in clearing Rs.15000/-. Hence, the cheque of Rs.43300/- was returned unpaid by the Service Branch, Delhi with remarks “Exceeds Arrangement”. However, another cheque for Rs.9918/- issued by the complainant /account holder was honoured/cleared by the Bank on 26.09.2013 itself. It is also pertinent to mention here that as per guidelines/instructions and as a matter of general prudence before issuing any cheque to any third party, it is the duty of the account holder to ensure that there are sufficient funds in his account. However, in the present case, the complainant issued a cheque of Rs.43300/- to some third party without verifying the actual clear balance in his account. Bank has acted as per a prudent banker as per norms and there is no deficiency on the part of the Bank. The answering OP had rightly dishonoured the cheque for the reasons, “INSUFFICIENT FUND”. It is absolutely wrong that on 26.09.2013 when the cheque in question came for realization of the amount, at that time, there was sufficient fund in the account of the complainant. It is absolutely wrong that there was any negligency or carelessness on the part of the answering OP. Rs.200/- was rightly charged by the OP as per Banking Rules from the complainant on account of dishonouring of the cheque.”

 

            Rest contents of the complaint were denied being wrong, incorrect and being manipulated. Lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint with heavy cost.

4.                     In support of his, learned counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence short affidavit of Shri Rajat Grover as Annexure CW/A , photocopy of account statement of M/s Net Computers as Annexure C-1, photocopy of email as Annexure C-2, photocopy of cheque dated 24.09.2013 amounting of Rs.43300/- as Annexure C-3, photocopy of cheque return memo of Union Bank of India as Annexure C-4, photocopy of emails as Annexure C-5, photocopy of legal notice dated 31.10.2013 as Annexure C-6, photocopy of reply of legal notice dated 14.11.2013 as Annexure C-7 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.                     On the other hand Shri Ram Chander Manager of Allahabad Bank tendered into evidence his affidavit as Annexure RW/A and closed his evidence.  

6.                     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely and carefully.

7.                     It is not disputed that complainant Rajat Grover was having a Bank Account bearing No.50153041462 in the name of his firm name i.e. M/s Net Computers which is duly evident from the copy of account statement (Annexure C-1).

8.                     The only grievance of the complainant is that a cheque bearing No. 868410 dated 24.09.2013 amounting to Rs.43,300/- was issued by the complainant in favour of Park Net Work Private Limited Gurgaon, which was presented by the drawee on 25.09.2013 with the Union Bank of India Branch Gurgaon but the same was dishonoured on 26.09.2013 with the remarks “Insufficient Fund” whereas the sum of Rs.54,267/- was available in the account of the complainant, but due to the negligence and carelessness of the official of the OP Bank the same has been returned with the remarks insufficient fund and Rs.200/- has been charged from the complainant. Learned counsel for the complainant further draw our attention towards the photocopy of emails (Annexure C-2 and C-5) and argued that the official of the OP Bank has admitted their carelessness and negligence. Learned counsel for the complainant further draw our attention towards photocopy of cheque (Annexure C-3) and photocopy of cheque return memo as Annexure C-4 and lastly prayed for acceptance of the complaint, which constitutes the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP.

9.                     On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP argued at length that there was no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP Bank and the cheque of the complainant was rightly returned with the remarks of “Insufficient Fund” as at the time of presentation there was no sufficient fund in the account of the complainant. Learned counsel for the OP further argued that from the perusal of account statement (Annexure C-1) it is duly evident that on 23.09.2013, 24.09.2013 and 25.09.2013 there was no sufficient Fund in the account of the complainant, whereas the complainant has himself admitted in his complaint that he had issued the cheque amounting to Rs.43,300/- on 24.09.2013 and the same was presented for clearance on 25.09.2013. Learned counsel for the OP Bank further argued that even on dated 26.09.2013 there was credit balance of Rs.54,267/- in the account of complainant but after clearing a cheque amounting Rs.9918/- and another cheque amounting Rs.30,000/-, issued by the complainant was presented on the same day i.e. on dated 26.09.2013 and there was balance of Rs.22,149/- so there were no sufficient fund on 26.09.2013 in the account of the complainant to clear the another cheque (third disputed cheque) amounting to Rs.43,300/- issued by the complainant. Lastly,  learned counsel for the OP argued that the complainant was himself negligent and carelessness as he issued 3 cheques amounting Rs.9,918/-, Rs.30,000/-and Rs.43,300/- respectively which were presented on the same day in the account of complainant with the OP Bank where as there was no sufficient fund in the account of the complainant. So, two cheques out of three cheques amounting Rs.9,918/- and Rs.30,000/- were cleared by the OP Bank and one disputed cheque amounting Rs.43,300/- was returned with the remarks of “Insufficient Fund” to the drawee. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of the complaint as there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP Bank.

10.                   After hearing both the parties, we are of the considered view that there was no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP Bank as from the perusal of account statement (Annexure C-1) it is duly evident that on the date of issuance of the disputed cheque i.e. 24.09.2013 and on the date of presentation of the cheque in question by the drawee on 25.09.2013, there was no sufficient fund in the account of the complainant. Further it is also duly evident from the account statement (Annexure C-1) that two cheques amounting Rs.9918/- and Rs.30,000/- which were issued by the complainant were cleared by the OP Bank on the same day i.e. 26.09.2013 but as no sufficient fund remained in the account of the complainant on 26.09.2013, so the cheque amounting Rs.43,300/- was rightly returned by the OP bank with the remarks “Insufficient Fund”. On the other angle also, it was the duty of the complainant to maintain the sufficient fund in his account before issuing any cheque from his account but in the present case, the complainant issued the cheque without maintaining sufficient fund in his account on 24.09.2013 and even on there was no sufficient fund on 25.09.2013. So, the version of the complainant that OP Bank has wrongly and illegally returned the cheque showing “Insufficient Fund” is not tenable.

11.                   Resultantly, in the circumstances noted above, we are of the considered view that the OP Bank has rightly returned the cheque bearing No.868410 dated 24.09.2013 (Annexure C-3) amounting to Rs.43,300/- with the remarks of “Insufficient Fund”. Hence, there is no merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court.

Dated: 22.06.2017.     

                                                                              (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                              PRESIDENT, DCDRF,

                                                                             YAMUNANAGAR AT JAGADHRI

 

 

 

           (VEENA RANI SHEOKAND)                 (S.C.SHARMA)

            MEMBER                                                 MEMBER