Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/497/2015

M/s Simphony - Complainant(s)

Versus

Andhra Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Rajshekhar/Sachin Bhardwaj Adv.

18 Feb 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	497 of 2015
Date  of  Institution	:	07.09.2015
Date   of   Decision	:	18.02.2016

 

 

 

 

 

M/s Simphony Electronics SCO 42-43, 1^st Floor, Sector 8, Chandigarh, through its Proprietor Rajaniesh Gill, R/o House No.3133, Sector 21-D, Chandigarh.

 

             …..Complainant

Versus

 

1]  Andhra Bank, SCO No.202-204, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh, through its Chairman.

 

2]  Andhra Bank, SCO 202-204, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager.

 

….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN                 PRESIDENT

         SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU       MEMBER

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

 

 

For complainant(s)      :     Sh.Rajeshekhar, Advocate

 

For Opposite Party(s)   :     Sh.Sumer Bector, Advocate

 

 

PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

 

 

          As per the case, the complainant is a dealer engaged in the business of trading of electronic commodities in the name of Simphony being the proprietorship concern. That the complainant is having an account with Opposite Party Bank bearing No.009511011003651, which was opened on 22.4.2000. That the complainant received a cheque dated 20.12.2014 amounting to Rs.3.00 lacs against some business transaction from SAK & Associates, Chandigarh (Ann.C-1), which after presentation with Opposite Party bank, was beneficially received as credit into the account of complainant and reflected in the statement as “Inst95 CLg Kotak Mahindra Ban Ltd” on 23.12.2014 (Ann.C-2) and the said credit remained in the complainant’s account of 1 days since morning to evening.  It is averred that relying on the said credit balance, the complainant entered into various transaction.  However, on the same day the amount of Rs.3.00 lacs remitted by Opposite Party Bank labeling the transaction as “CHQ Counter Return CHQ no 954” on 23.12.2014, which is a patent violation to the relationship of trustee amongst the banker and customer and the Opposite Party has fraudulently withdrawn the money from his account.  It is pleaded that the complainant while making payments to his creditors came to know that his payments are not getting authorised due to non-availability of funds in his account.  The complainant took this matter with the Opposite Party Bank but to no avail. Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging the above act of the Opposite Party as illegal and deficiency in service. 

 

2]       The OPs have filed joint reply and admitted the complainant’s having bank account with the bank as well as presentation of cheque in question of Rs.3.00 lacs in his account.  It is stated that the said cheque was not clear credit in the account of the complainant.  It is also stated that answering Opposite Party reversed the entry of Rs.300 lacs because the KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. supplied the hardcopy of memo dated 23.12.2014 with remarks “PAYMENT STOPPED BY THE DRAWER” pertaining to the cheque in question.  Further, that as per the banking law and practice and norms of RBI, the answering Opposite Party does not required any authorization from the complainant for crediting, debiting and return thereof, if any, in case of clearing instruments.  Further, the complainant should ask the party, who issued the cheque in question instead of asking the answering Opposite Party and moreover, the cheque was bounced and complainant did not file any criminal complaint against SAK & Associates.  Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegations, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

 

3]       Replication has also been filed by the complainant thereby reiterating the assertions as made in the complaint and controverting that the Opposite Parties made in the written reply.

 

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

 

6]       The complainant has alleged that the Opposite Parties are his banker’s and he has been maintaining his account with the Opposite Parties since 22.4.2000, which was being continuously operated for the past 15 years.  During one such business transaction, a cheque amounting to Rs.3.00 lakh issued by “SAK & Associates, Chandigarh” bearing NO.000954, drawn on Kotak Mahindra Bank, was deposited on 23.12.2014, for necessary clearance. The complainant claims that on 23.12.2014, a credit entry against the said cheque was noticed.  However, while keeping the said credit entry alive for the entire day, the same was reversed in the evening without any rhyme and reason, meanwhile, the complainant understanding that there was sufficient amounting lying deposited in his account, entered into different business deals and promised payment against them to its customers. The complainant claims that due to unreasonable and unilateral decision of the OPs in reversing the credit entry in the account of the complainant had resulted into huge business loss as well as loss of reputation.  Thus claiming deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, has sought the quoted relief.

 

7]       The Opposite Parties while contesting the claim of the complainant, have defended themselves by claiming that in the normal course of banking transactions, whenever a valid instrument is received and dispatched to the local clearing branch, a credit entry is made in the account of the beneficiary, though the transfer of such cash in the beneficiary’s account only happens once the cheque, so presented, is cleared by the clearing branch.  Thus, such credit entry is confirmed on such instructions only and the beneficiary account holder is allowed to transact on such credit amount.  As the clearing branch did not honour the cheque on the instructions of the drawee and no cash was transferred into the account of the complainant and due to negative response from the clearing branch, the said credit entry was reversed on the same day, which the Opposite Parties claim to be a purely an in-house action on their part and no case of deficiency in service is made out against them for this action.  Thus praying for the dismissal of the complaint with heavy costs.

 

8]       We have perused the documents placed on record by the parties and are of the opinion that the present complaint filed by the complainant on the said cause of action of reversing of credit entry on 23.12.2014, which the complainant claims was unilaterally done by the Opposite Parties causing an irreparable loss of business reputation. 

 

9]       The complainant has not placed on record any such document from where we could adduce that it had failed to honour its such financial obligation due to the reverse entry of Rs.3.00 lacs on 23.12.2014 when there was already an amount of Rs.26,91,235/- lying as credit in its account.  Therefore, the blame of having lost the business credibility and also not having met the financial obligations towards its clients, is not proved, in the absence of any document or return of such bank instruments, issued by it and not honoured by the OPs.

                                      

10]      It is also necessary to mention here that the complainant is into the business under the name & style of Simphony Electronics for the past 15 years and maintaining the said account with the Opposite Parties, therefore, we are not convinced with the allegation of the complainant for the reason that the complainant is well aware of the manner as to how a cheque presented to its banker is only honoured after it had gone through the process of a clearing branch, which is not maintained with its banker and furthermore, the fact that has come to light is that the cheque issued by “SAK & Associates, Chandigarh” bearing NO.000954, drawn on Kotak Mahindra Bank, was returned by the clearing branch with a note “PAYMENT STOPPED BY THE DRAWER” vide Ann.C-4.  Therefore, for any such action that had happened outside the control of Opposite Parties, they cannot be held liable for it nor any case of deficiency in service is made out against them. 

 

11]      In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that no case of deficiency in service is made out against the Opposite Parties. Hence, this complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs.

 

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

 

Announced

18^th February, 2016                                                              

                                                                        Sd/-

 (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

Om                                                                                                                        

 

 

DISTRICT FORUM – II

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.497 OF 2015

PRESENT:   None   Dated the 18th day of February, 2016

O R D E R                        Vide our detailed order of even date, recorded separately, the complaint has been dismissed.                    After compliance, file be consigned to record room.

 

(Priti Malhotra)	(Rajan Dewan)	(Jaswinder Singh Sidhu)
Member	President	Member