Delhi

New Delhi

CC/116/2016

Suresh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Axis Bank Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

22 Feb 2022

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, VI,

DISTT.NEW DELHI, M-BLOCK, VIKAS BHAWAN, NEW  DELHI-110002.

 

CC No:116/2016

IN THE MATTER OF:

 

SURESH KUMAR

S/O SH. PREM SINGH

H.NO.300, PANGLA PANA VILLAGE,

VILLAGE-KATEWARA, P.S. BAWANA,

NEW DELHI-110039                                              … COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

1.AXIS BANK LTD. THROUGH CEO,

CORPORATE OFFICE, BOMBAY DYEING MILLS COMPOUND,

PANDURANG BUDHKAR MARG,

WORLI, MUMBAI-400025.

 

2. AXIS BANK LTD. THROUGH CHIEF MANAGER,

2-A/2-B, KHAN MARKET, NEW DELHI-110003

 

3. AXIS BANK LTD. THROUGHCHIEF MANAGER,

BRANCH SONEPAT,

DISTT. SONEPAT, HARYAN                        … OPPOSITE PARTY(IES)

 

 

CORAM : SH. POONAM CHAUDHRY, PRESIDENT

                 SH. BARIQ AHMAD, MEMBER

                 MS. ADARSH NAIN, MEMBER   

                                                                                                                Date of Institution: 09.02.2016

                                                                                                               Date of decision: 22.02.2022

BARIQ AHMAD, MEMBER

ORDER

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OPs under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Iinter-alia alleging that his mother-in-law issued a cheque No.548009 for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- in favor of complainant. Cheque was drawn on SBI, branch Sonepat, Haryana. The complainant was having salary account bearing No.120010100277051 with OP-No.2.  The complainant deposited the above cheque on 29.01.2015 with the OP-3   as the complainant was in need to deposit E.M.I. of LIC Housing Loan through ECS from his account on 10.02.2015. It is further alleged that on 10.02.2015 the EMI towards housing loan has not deducted from his account due to reason “INSUFFICIENT FUNDS” in his account. The complainant was under the impression that EMI would be deducted through ECS as he had deposited Rs.3,00,000/- in his salary account  on 29.01.2015. It was further alleged that the complainant was further need of money for fulfilling his domestic needs and to assist his daughter as she was under medical treatment due to her pregnancy as she was taking treatment from Dua Hospital, Sonepat Haryana and gave birth to a male child on 03.03.2015 through operation, due to lack of finance and money in hand of the complainant his daughter had to suffer a great mental as well physical hardship and due to this, new born child of his daughter expired on 11.03.2015. The complainant visited OP-2&3 on 13.02.2015 to know the fate of the cheque, he was intimated that OP-3 had not received any intimation about the cheque from OP-2. Due to arrogant and irresponsible acts on the part of OP-2&3, the complainant has to think of closing his aforesaid account.
2. It is further alleged that the complainant had to go outstation and was urgent need of money, so he had to withdraw Rs.15,000/- on 16.02.2015, the complainant came to know when called the customer care of OP bank that OP No.2 bank closed the said account of the complainant on the same very day i.e.16.02.2015 after some time of withdrawal of the amount at ATM Gorakhpur, U.P. and hence he could not avail the facility of ATM card. It is further alleged that on return from out station he visited OP-2 bank and enquired about of balance amount Rs.2,76,122.71/- lying in his account at the time of closing the account, the concerned official of OP-2 bank informed that the said amount had been transferred to reserve amount and the said amount had already been sent through speed post by way of a pay order for the remaining amount in the account, but no avail. On 05.03.3015 Op bank handed over an envelope with banker`s cheque when complainant visited to the branch of OP-2 to know the fate of amount. It is alleged that the OP was under a legal obligation to return the said cheque amount to complainant to enable him to avail of remedy on the basis thereof, against the drawer and further to return the amount of the closed account. Alleging deficiency in service, the complainant filed this complaint against the OP`s, praying for compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- along with interest @18% per annum  and cost of litigation Rs.33,000/-from the OP`s .
3. OP-2 bank countered the case and  filed written statement. In the reply, OP submitted that the complaint is not maintainable, it is false, wrong and baseless as such the same is liable to be dismissed as this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain, try and adjudicate the present complaint as no part of cause of action arose at New Delhi. It is stated that the complainant had deposited the cheque bearing No.548009 of Rs.3,00,000/- at the Sonepat branch i.e. OP.3 thus no part of cause of action arose in Delhi. It is further stated that the complainant had deposited the NON CTC Cheque on 29.01.2015 and thereafter it was sent to clearing to clearing House managed by RBI and in the meantime there was a strike in SBI and the OP Bank got the funds from paying bank SBI on 03.02.2015. It was further stated that the complainant had submitted a form for closure  his salary account maintained with Khan Market/Sonepat branch of the OP Bank on 10.02.2016 (wrongly mentioned the year in WS in para 7) and as the complainant was having its account at Khan Market, branch New Delhi accordingly, the Sonepat branch i.e. OP-3 sent the said request to its Khan Market branch as per the request of complainant the said account in question was closed on 16.02.2015, but the complainant did not approached the bank branch to receive the balance amount and thereafter received the same on 05.03.2016. It is stated that  there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

 

4. The complainant filed rejoinder, denying the averments made in their written statement and retreating the allegations made in the complaint.  

 

5. In order to prove his case the complainant filed his affidavit in evidence again reiterating the contents of the complaint and also filed written arguments. The complainant also placed on record copy of voter I. card and service I. card, copy of the LIC  housing loan statement, copy of Statement of account  of complainant S.B.A/C  between 01.01.2015 to 13.02.2015, Copy of ATM debit card.

 

6. On the other hand on behalf of OP Bank Sh. Rajneesh  Choudhary, working as VP & Branch Head, Khan Market Branch, Axis Bank Ltd. filed his affidavit  in evidence which is on the basis of the written statement. The OP also placed on record certified true copy of report of ECS Upload on 10.02.2015.

 

7. This Commission has considered the case of the complainant in the light of evidence and documents placed on record by the complainant as well as the defense taken by the OP in the written statement. It is not disputed by the OP that the complainant had deposited the Non CTS cheque on 29.01.2015 for collection and got the funds from paying bank SBI on 03.02.2015 and thereafter it was sent to clearing to clearing House managed by RBI and in the meantime there was a strike in SBI and the OP Bank got the funds from paying bank SBI on 03.02.2015 as reflected in the detail statement of account filed by complainant. However, the stand taken is that there was a strike in SBI and the OP Bank got the funds from paying bank SBI on 03.02.2015 and ECS of Housing Loan of LIC was dishonored due to insufficient fund, we have no hesitation that OP can not escape liability for payment of reasonable compensation to complainant as the OP Bank had not complied the instructions issued by the RBI on the subjects of cheque collection policies  (in short CCPs) framed by the bank in the interest of better information dissemination and service to customers vide Notification No.DPSS.CO.(CHD) NO.873/03.09.01/2008-09 dated 24.11.2008 direction issued by Hon`ble National Commission, New Delhi in case No.82 of 2006. Notwithstanding the above, in the interest of better clarity as also to ensure compliance with orders of the NCDRC, we reiterate the following:- (i). Banks shall reframe their CCPs covering local and outstation cheque collection as per the timeframe prescribed by the Hon`ble National Commission. (ii) For local cheques credit and debit shall be given on the same day or at the most the next day of their presentation in clearing. Ideally, in respect of local clearing banks shall permit usage of the shadow credit afforded to the customer accounts immediately after closure of relative return clearing and in any case withdrawal shall be allowed on the same day or maximum within an hour of commencement of business on the next working day, subject to usual safeguards. (iii) Time frame for collection of cheque drawn on state capitals/ major cities / other locations to be 7/10/14 days respectively. It there is any delay in collection beyond this period, interest at the rate specified in the CPC of the bank, shall be paid. In case the rate is not specified in the CCP, the applicable rate shall be the interest rate on Fixed Deposits for the corresponding maturity. The timeframe for collection specified by the Commission shall be treated as outer limit and credit shall be afforded if the process gets completed earlier. As advised, vide, directions issued by the Bank dated October, 8, 2008 (DPSS.CO.NO.611/03.01.03 (P)/2008-09 ‘banks shall not decline to accept outstation cheques deposited by its customers for collection’. With the further direction that the bank shall be monitoring the directions issued by it as also those passed by the Commission for compliance.
8. The objects of the Statute Under The Consumer Protection Act,1986 is to safeguard the interests of the consumers against the unscrupulous manufacturers or traders selling such sub-standard or defective goods or against the provider of service who are not providing service and not maintaining the standard of service. In a recent Judgment passed by Hon`ble Supreme  Court in Civil Appeal No.8775-8776 of 2016 titled  Pradeep  Kumar And Another v/s Post Master General And Others held that “the post office/bank can be held liable for the fraud or wrongs committed by its employees”. In view of the above, we are of the considered view we held  that OP Bank liable for the acts of its employee, jointly or severally they held guilty of deficiency in service. Accordingly, the OP bank  jointly or severally are directed as under:

1. To pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) to the complainant as compensation towards mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant.
2.  to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) as cost of litigation of this complaint.

9. The above order shall be complied by OP bank within 30 days from the date of receiving copy of this order and awarded amount shall be paid to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receiving copy of this order failing which OP bank shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount @ 9% per annum from the date of receiving copy of this order till the date of payment. If OP bank fails to comply the order within 30 days from the date of receiving copy of this order, the complainant may approach this Forum under section 71 & 72 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
10. Let a copy of this order be provide/sent to each party free of cost as per regulation of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.

Announced on this 22^nd day  of February, 2022.

 

 

MS.POONAM CHAUDHRY

(PRESIDENT)

BARIQ AHMAD                                                                                                                                  MS. ADARSH NAIN          

    (MEMBER)                                                                                                                                              (MEMBER)