Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 286
Instituted on : 21.06.2018
Decided on : 26.11.2024
VedParkash Aggarwal S/o Sh. Shri Niwas Aggarwal Proprietor Aggarwal Electrical Trs. Shop no. 26 Palika bazaar Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Union Bank of India HUDA complex, Near Reliance Fresh, Rohtak through its Divisional Manager.
- Union Bank of India, signature towers NH8, south city Gurugram (HR) – 122001 through its Zonal Manager.
……….Opposite party(s).
COMPLAINT U/S 35 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,2019.
BEFORE: SH. NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT.
DR.VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Kamal, Adv. for the complainant.
Sh. B.R. Arora, Adv. for the OP no.1.
Opposite party no.2 already exparte.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN,PRESIDENT :
1. Brief facts of the case, as per the complainant, are that he is having current account number–113411011000149 with the opposite party no.1 bank from where he circulates his business transactions. The complainant deposited a cheque No.36484 drawn on Oriental Bank of Commerce for Rs.25,466/- in his banker i.e. Andhra Bank. After completion of internal process,opposite party cleared the cheque and credited the amount of Rs.25466/-on 08.03.2018 in the account of complainant. But on 02.05.2018, the opposite party debited Rs.25466/- from the aforesaid account of complainant without any notice or his consent. The complainant complained the matter to the opposite party with the request to resolve the same and even got served a legal notice to the opposite party but the opposite party did not pay any heed. This act and conduct of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service on their part. The complainant has suffered great hardship, mental harassment and pecuniary business loss due to non availability of funds. Hence this complaint and it has been prayed that the opposite parties may kindly be directed to refund the above said amount of Rs.25,466/- along with interest @ 18% p.a., to pay Rs.25000/- on account of compensation and Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. Upon notice, the opposite party No. 1 appeared and filed its written statement. In its written statement, the opposite party No. 1 has submitted that the complainant in his complaint has written the cheque number as 36484 whereas the cheque attached with the complaint is 036484 dated 12.10.2017. But it is nowhere mentioned in the complaint that when the cheque was deposited. The complainant has intentionally not given the correct cheque number and date of its deposit. The complainant had asked for returning the amount of Rs.25466/- through his legal notice. The said notice was sent by M/s Aggarwal Electric Traders but without mentioning through whom and without any partner name. Even the alleged cheque was in the name of Aggarwal Electric Traders and the complained has been filed by Shri. VedParkash Aggarwal. It is incorrect that complainant is legally entitled to be compensated for the alleged mental harassment, agony and business loss. The complainant did not suffer a loss of single penny or did not suffer mentally in the hands of respondents. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. However, after filing of amended title, notice to the opposite party No. 2 was again issued through registered post but as per the tracking report placed on record by the counsel for complainant, the delivery of item found confirmed but none appeared on behalf of the opposite party no.2. Thus the opposite party No. 2 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 17.9.2024 of this Commission.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavits Ex. CW1/A, documents Ex. C-1 to Ex. C-6 in his evidence and closed the same on dated 21.08.2019. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the opposite party no.1 tendered affidavit Ex. RW1/A in his evidence and thereafter opposite parties failed to conclude their evidence despite availing sufficient opportunities and the evidence of opposite parties was closed by the order dated 26.02.2020 of this Commission.
5. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents placed on record and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. In this case, complainant is proprietor of Aggarwal Electronics Trs. Initially the complaint has been filed against the Andhra Bank, HUDA Complex, Near Reliance Fresh, Rohtak but thereafter, the Andhra bank has been merged in Union of India. Amended title has been filed on 28.05.2024 and in the array of respondents, the bank has been added. In the present case,the complainant is having a current account no.113411011000149 in Andhra Bank HUDA Complex, Rohtak. He deposited a cheque bearing no.36484, drawn at OBC for an amount of Rs.25466/- in his bank i.e. Andhra Bank. The perusal of documents shows that an amount of Rs.25466/- has been deposited in the account of complainant on dated 08.03.2018 and the perusal of Ex.C1 itself shows that an amount of Rs.25466/- has been debited fromthe account of complainant on 09.05.2018 and a note has been mentioned that “OBC CHEQUE 36484 RETURNED INSUFFICIENT FUNDS”. As per our opinion once a cheque has been realized and has been deposited in the account of complainant, in that situation, if the amount has been debited, a prior notice should be issued to the complainant by Andhra Bank. Moreover the cheque has not been returned to the complainant so that the complainant could avail a legal remedy. Opposite party has taken a plea that there was insufficient fund in the account of issuing person, who issued cheque no.36484 in favour of the complainant. But neither any notice was given to the complainant nor any document has been placed on record to prove the same. As per letter Ex.C6, regarding ‘Customer Service-Reversal of Erroneous Debits Arising on Fraudulent or other transactions’, in para no.3, it has been mentioned that “ With a view to redressing the grievances of the customers in this regard, we have reviewed the position and advise that (i) in cases where banks are at fault, the banks should compensate customers without demur, and (ii) in cases where neither the bank is at fault nor the customer at fault but the fault lies elsewhere in the system, then also the banks should compensate the customers(upto a limit) as part of a Board approved customer relations policy”. Hence the alleged letter itself proved that where neither the bank nor the customer is at fault, the bank should compensate the complainant. In this case, the amount has wrongly been debited from the account of complainant but despite the alleged guidelines of banks, the complainant has not been compensated by the opposite party. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite parties to return the amount of Rs.25466/-(Rupees twenty five thousand four hundred and sixty six only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of deduction i.e. 09.05.2018 till its realisation and also to pay Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant.
8. Application(s) pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
9. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
26.11.2024
........................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
……………………………….
Vijender Singh, Member
