Delhi

East Delhi

CC/32/2016

CHANDRA LAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

BANK OF BARODA - Opp.Party(s)

03 Apr 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO. 32/16

 

Shri Chandra Lal Mehta

B-43, Gyandeep Apartments

Mayur Vihar–1, Delhi–110 091                                         ….Complainant

 

Vs.

 

1. Manager - Bank of Baroda,

Mayur Vihar-1 Branch

Delhi – 110 091

 

2. Manager - State Bank of India

IIT Delhi, Hauz Khas  Branch

New Delhi – 110 016                                                       ….Opponents

 

Date of Institution: 25.01.2016

Judgment Reserved on: 03.04.2017

Judgment Passed on: 07.04.2017

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari  (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

 

JUDGEMENT

 

The present complaint has been filed by Shri Chandra Lal Mehta against  Manager, Bank of Baroda (OP-1) and Manager, State Bank of India (OP-2) alleging deficiency in services.

2.       Brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant has joint saving bank account with OP-1 bearing no. 27520100000907 in the name of Nirmala Mehta and Chandra Lal Mehta and 2 saving bank account with OP-2 in the name of Nirmala Mehta and Chandra Lal Mehta bearing account no. 10773576489 and another account no. 10773626636 in the name of Chandra Lal Mehta and Nirmala Mehta. On 14.12.2015, the complainant submitted 2 cheques bearing no. 577440 for Rs. 2,50,000/- and cheque no. 154013 for Rs. 4,00,000/- drawn on OP-2 bank as he wanted to transfer funds from OP-2 to OP-1.  It is stated that the said cheques had been rejected by OP-2.

          On enquiry, the complainant was informed that the reason for rejection could be disclosed once the cheques were returned physically.  It is stated that on 18.12.2015, the cheques were returned but no memo was issued, it was only after the complainant insisted memo was issued with reason “Cheque irregularly drawn” in case of the first cheque and second cheque was rejected with reason being “Insufficient Funds”.

          It is further stated that on 16.12.2017, OP-1 debited the savings account of the complainant by Rs. 574/- as penalty for return of the two above mentioned cheques.  The complainant has averred that due to this deduction, the balance of the saving bank account reduced below minimum level, for which OP-1 transferred the funds of FDR to saving account by prematurely closing it, thus resulting in loss of interest.  It is also stated that rejection and returning of the cheques amounts to deficiency in services on part of OP-2 and deduction of amount by OP-1 without getting rejection memo also amounts to deficiency in services.

          Feeling aggrieved with the acts of both OPs, the complainant has prayed for directions to both OPs to pay Rs. 50,000/- towards financial loss suffered on account of non-receipt of cheque amounts, Rs. 40,000/- towards compensation for physical strain and mental agony and         Rs. 50,000/- as litigation expenses.

          Copy of cheque no. 577440 and 154053, copies of return memo issued by OP-1 and copy of statement of savings bank account maintained with OP-2 are annexed with the complaint.

3.       Notice of the complaint was served upon OPs.  OP-1 in their reply took the plea that the complainant was not a consumer and did not fall under the definition of “Consumer” under Section 2(1) of the Consumer Protection Act.  It was stated that the complainant had super saving account with auto sweep and auto reverse sweep benefits.  Presentation of cheques was also admitted.  It was stated that in case of auto sweep and auto reverse sweep whenever the balance reduces below the limit, the computer system automatically transfers the fixed deposit to savings account.  It was stated that complainant was bound by the terms and conditions already accepted.  Thus, no deficiency in services could be attributed to OP-1.

          OP-2, however, did not file their reply.  As both the OPs had stopped appearing, they were proceeded ex-parte.

4.       Rejoinder to the reply on behalf of OP-1 was filed by the complainant.  It was stated that there was sufficient balance in the saving bank account of the complainant from which Rs. 574/- could be debited and OP-1 had credited the FDR amount as per entry in statement of account as Rs. 1,000/- and Rs. 9,014/- on realization of their mistake.  Rest of the contents of the reply were denied and those of the complaint were reiterated.

5.       Complainant examined himself and placed on record his affidavit, exhibited CW1/A, copies of cheques (Ex.CW1/1 & Ex.CW1/2), copy of return memo (Ex.CW1/3 & Ex.CW1/4), endorsement by OP-1 (Ex.CW1/5 & Ex.CW1/6), copy of passbook (Ex.CW1/7), copy of SBI passbook (Ex.CW1/8 & Ex.CW1/9) respectively.

6.       We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the complainant and OP-1 and have perused the material placed on record. Ex.CW1/3 and Ex.CW1/4 are the return memos dated 18.12.2015, issued by OP-1, which bears the reason for rejection for cheque of an amount of         Rs. 2,50,000/- was “Cheque irregularly withdrawn” and for                  Rs. 4,00,000/- was “Funds”.  Ex.CW1/9 reveals that there were sufficient funds in the account for clearing Rs. 4,00,000/-.  Further, as per RBI guidelines, the paying bank should return dishonuor cheque and the collecting bank on receipt of such dishonoured cheque shall dispatch it immediately to holder/payee.  In the instant complaint, OP-2 SBI Bank rejected the cheque despite sufficient funds.  Thus, they are liable for deficiency in services, which is further substantiated by endorsement dated 19.12.2015 by OP-1.

          As far as OP-1 is concerned, they had issued return memo for both the cheques, and with respect to dispute regarding debit of         Rs. 574/-, it was rightly debited by OP-1 on account of inward return and averment by the complainant that OP-1 had transferred FDR amount prematurely into his saving account also does not stand on its feet, as the complainant had facility of auto sweep and auto reversal, the minimum balance has to be maintained in saving bank account, in the instant case which reduced below the limit.  Thus, OP-1 has acted as per terms and conditions and guidelines.  So, no deficiency in services can be attributed to them.

          From the above discussion, OP-2 has indulged in deficiency in services and is liable to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment.  This shall act as a deterrent on OP-2.  The said order be complied within 30 days of receipt of this order.  In case of failure,OP-2 shall  be liable to pay 9% interest on Rs. 10,000/- from the date of order till realization.            

          Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                 (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

Member                                                                   Member            

     

      (SUKHDEV SINGH)

             President