DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No.263 of 10.7.2017

                                      Decided on:   13.8.2021

Fatehjit Singh Jolly aged about 51 years son of Sh.Ujjagar Singh, resident of House No.6-E, Rattan Nagar, Part-2,Patiala.

                                                                    …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1. Bank of India, Dashmesh Nagar Branch, Patiala through its Branch Manager

and its Chief Manager.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act

QUORUM

                                      Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President

                                      Sh.Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member    

ARGUED BY

                                      Sh.S.S.Sahni,counsel for complainant.

                                      Sh.Kanwardeep Galhotra,counsel for OPs.                            

 ORDER

                                      JASJIT SINGH BHINDER,PRESIDENT

1. This is the complaint filed by Fatehjit Singh Jolly (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against Bank of India and another (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s).
2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant has having saving account No.655310110000912 with the bank of India, Branch Dashmesh Nagar, Patiala having sufficient funds in the same.
3. It is averred that in the month of March,2017, the complainant purchased electrical goods for an amount of Rs.12,700/- from M/s Tipsy Electrical, Patiala and issued cheque  dated 7.4.2017 of Rs.12,700/- from his aforesaid account in favour of M/s Tiposy Electricals. It is further averred that again on 12.4.2017 the complainant issued cheque in favour of Sh.Parmod Kumar in order to discharge his liability of the amount of Rs.10,000/- for the work of floor tilling . It is further averred that on 23.4.2017 he received legal notice dated 21.4.2017 from Sh.Surinder Singh prop. of Tipsy Electrical through his counsel Sh.Uday Partap Singh Shergill, Advocate that the cheque No.029938 dated 7.4.2017 for Rs.12,700/- was dishonoured  and has been returned back alongwith memo with the remarks “Funds Insufficient”. It is further averred that not only this the complainant again received legal notice dated 23.4.2017 from Sh.Parmod Kumar through his counsel Sh.Har Raman Preet Singh, Advocate that the cheque of Rs.10,000/- issued by the complainant has been dishonoured by its banker Bank of India and has been returned alongwith memo dated 13.4.2017 with remarks “Funds Insufficient” It is further averred that at the time of issuing of cheques the complainant was having around of Rs.5,77,796/- in his account and there was no chances of dishonouring of cheques.
4. It is further averred that after receiving legal notices, the complainant approached the parties to whom he issued the cheques and under the compelled circumstances, he had to compromise with them and paid Rs.15,000/- to Parmod Kumar i.e. Rs.5000/- in excess than actual amount as per compromise dated 1.5.2017 and  also paid Rs.17000/- to Surinder Singh i.e.Rs.4300/- more than the actual amount as per compromise dated 5.5.2017.Not only this he has to face legal activities in order to save himself from legal consequences under Section 138 of N.I.Act. Thus there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs which caused mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant. Hence this complaint with the prayer to accept the complaint by giving direction to the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.9300/- paid in excess to  Parmod Kumar and Sarabjit Singh than the actual amount; to pay Rs. one lac as compensation on account of financial loss, mental harassment and frustration and also to pay Rs.25000/-as costs of the complaint.
5. Upon notice, OPs appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply having raised preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable; that the complaint has been filed on false and concocted facts; that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint and that the present complaint is misconceived , basless , false and frivolous.
6. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant is having saving bank account with OP No.1. It is pleaded that from the cheque return memo dated 7.4.2017, it is revealed that the cheque of Rs.12,700/- was presented for clearly by M/s Tipsy Electricals in its bank account maintained with Punjab and Sind Bank through branch Regional Collection Centre, Guru Nanak Nagar, Tripuri, Patiala and as per procedure , for clearance it was forwarded and presented by the said Regional Collection Centre, of Punjab and Sind Bank, through online clearing at Northern Grid, New Delhi. It is further pleaded that at no point of time the said cheque was neither presented or received by any of the OPs at Patiala for clearance nor dishonoured. Similarly from  the perusal of cheque return memo dated 13.4.2017, it is revealed that the cheque of Rs.10,000/-was presented for clearing by Mr.Parmod Kumar in its Bank account maintained with State Bank of Patiala, through Bhupindra Nagar Branch, Patiala and as per standard procedure for clearance it was forwarded and presented by the said State Bank of Patiala through online clearing at Northern Grid, New Delhi but at no point of time the said cheque was either  presented or received by any of the OPs for clearance nor dishonoured. So there is no deficiency in service of the OPs. After denying all other averments made in the complaint, the OPs have prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
7. In support of the complaint, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant, Ex.CB affidavit of Uday Partap Singh Shergill, Advocate, Ex.CC, affidavit of Sh. Har Ramanpreet Singh, Advocate alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C13 and closed the evidence.
8. On the other hand, Sh.Ved Parkash Branch manager alongwith  counsel has tendered his affidavit, Ex.OPA on behalf of the OPs alongwith document,Ex.OP1 and closed the evidence.
9. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
10.   The ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant is having saving bank account in Bank of India, Branch, Patiala vide passbook,Ex.C1.The ld. counsel further argued that in the month of March,2017 the complainant purchased some electrical goods for an amount of Rs.12,700/- from M/s Tipsy Electrical ,Patiala and issued a cheque in question from his account of Bank of India in favour  of Tipsy Electricals. Further on 12.4.2017 complainant issued another cheque in favour  of Sh.Parmod Kumar for Rs.10,000/- for work of floor tilling got done from him and  at that time there was sufficient amount of Rs.5,77,796/-  in his account. The ld. counsel further argued that on 23.4.2017, the complainant received legal notice dated 21.4.2017 from Surinder Singh prop. of Tipsy Electrical got sent through Sh.Uday Partap Singh Shergill, Advocate that the cheque of Rs.12,700/- was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. The ld. counsel further argued that on 23.4.2017, the complainant received another legal notice from Parmod Kumar got sent through his counsel that cheque dated 12.4.2017 was dishonoured due to funds insufficient..The ld. counsel further argued that from the record of the file, it is clear that sufficient amount of Rs.5,77,796/- was in the account .So both the cheques were wrongly dishonoured.As such the complaint be allowed.
11. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OPs has argued that this complaint is not maintainable and cheques were sent to the wrong bank and they were never dishonoured. The ld. counsel further argued that even from the record produced by the complainant, it is proved that OPs bank has not dishonoured the cheque, so the complaint be dismissed.
12. To prove his case, Fatehjit Singh Jolly has tendered his affidavit,Ex.CA and has deposed as per the complaint, Ex.CB is the affidavit of Uday Partap Singh Shergill, Advocate, who has issued the legal notice to the complainant, Ex.CC is the affidavit of Har Ramanpreet Singh, Advocate, who has issued the legal notice to the complainant  for dishonouring of cheque, Ex.C1 is the account statement of the complainant of Bank of India, in which the total amount of Rs.5,70,904.91 is shown to be available in the account of the complainant, Ex.C2 is legal notice sent by Har Ramanpreet Singh,Advocate,Ex.C3  legal notice sent by Uday Partap Singh Shergill,Exs.C4 and C5 are compromise.Ex.C7 is important document. This cheque was issued by the complainant from his pass book Bank of India to Parmod Kumar for Rs.10,000/- and vide memo Ex.C7 that cheque was dishonoured due to Insufficient Funds. Ex.C8 is legal notice sent by Har Ramanpreet Singh,Advocate.Ex.C11 is cheque of Bank of India issued by complainant in favour  of M/s Tipsy Electricals for Rs.12,700/-and Ex.C10 this cheque was dishonoured due to  “Funds Insufficient” So it is clear that cheques Ex.C7 and Ex.C11 were issued by the complainant from his passbook of Bank of India from his account in favour of Parmod Kumar for Rs.10,000/- and in favour  of Tipsy Electrical for Rs.12,700/- respectively  and both the cheques were dishonoured vide memos Exs.C6 and X10 due to in sufficient funds, whereas as per the account statement Ex.C2  the amount of more than Rs.5,70,000/- was lying in the account of the complainant. So it is clear that both these cheques were wrongly dishonoured by the bank.
13. The OPs has tendered Ex.OPA affidavit Sh.Ved Parkash,Branch Manager who has deposed as per the written statement.Ex.OP1 is the record of Bank of India.
14. So it is clear that despite the complainant was having amount of Rs.5,70,904/- in his account as on 17.4.2017 but both the cheques issued by the complainant from this account were dishonoured by the Bank and memos of dishonouring of cheques have been proved on the file as mentioned above. So definitely there was deficiency in service on the part of the Bank.
15. So the complaint is partly allowed. The complainant has sought the compensation of Rs.one lac and Rs.25000/-as litigation expenses and Rs.9300/- additional sum amount but all this amount cannot be paid. Accordingly the OPs are directed to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for unnecessary harassment despite having sufficient amount in his account and the cheques were dishonoured and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.  

Compliance of the order be made by the OPs within a period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order.

ANNOUNCED

DATED:13.8.2021       

                                            Vinod Kumar Gulati        Jasjit Singh Bhinder

                                                        Member                            President