Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/672/2018

Kanhaiya Lal Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bank of Maharashtra - Opp.Party(s)

Pradeep Sharma

12 Feb 2020

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                                    ========

 

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/672/2018
Date of Institution	:	21/12/2018
Date of Decision	:	12/02/2020

 

Kanhaiya Lal Sharma, Proprietor of M/s Satyam Enterprises, Shop No.634, Kesho Ram Complex, Burail, Sector 45-C, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

 

The Branch Manager, Bank of Maharashtra, SCO 121-122, Sector 45-C, Village Burail, Chandigarh – 160047.

…… Opposite Party

QUORUM:	RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

                                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Pradeep Sharma, Counsel for Complainant.
	:	Sh. Sumit Narang, Counsel for Opposite Party.

 

Per Surjeet Kaur, Member

1.         Adumbrated in brief, the facts necessary for the disposal of the instant Consumer Complaint are, the Complainant is running proprietorship concern in the name of M/s Satyam Enterprises and had opened a Current Account No.60007849937 in the name of M/s Satyam Enterprises with the OP-Bank. The Complainant had presented various Cheques along with a Cheque No.247947 amounting to Rs.2,00,000/- drawn on Vijaya Bank issued by Vishwakarma Aluminum & Fabricators for clearing with the OP-Bank. On 21.07.2018, OP-Bank telephonically informed the Complainant that the current account of the Complainant had been put on hold for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- on the request of Vijaya Bank. The Complainant immediately wrote letters dated 27.07.2018 and 02.08.2018 to the Opposite Party for the normal operation of the account, but to no avail. Eventually the Complainant got served a legal notice dated 13.08.2018 upon the Opposite Party, but the same did not fructify. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party, the complainant has filed the instant Consumer Complaint.
2.         Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Party seeking its version of the case.
3.         Opposite Party contested the Complaint and filed reply, inter alia, admitting the basic facts of the case. It has been pleaded that on 10.07.2018, Complainant presented Cheque No.247947 drawn on Vijaya Bank amounting to Rs.2,00,000/- for clearing with the answering Opposite Party. The proceeds of the said Cheque were credited into the account of the Complainant. However, in the meantime, answering Opposite Party received a counter claim from Vijaya Bank to return the said amount as their customer (drawer of Cheque No.247947) had requested to stop the payment for the said Cheque (Annexure R-2). Since the account of the Complainant was not having the available amount i.e. Rs.2,00,000/- at that time, therefore, the account of the Complainant was put on hold for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- in anticipation that whenever there would be sufficient balance in the account, it would be debited and transferred to the Vijaya Bank through Demand Draft. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, Opposite Party has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4.         Controverting the allegations contained in the written statement and reiterating the pleadings in the Complaint, the Complainant filed the rejoinder.
5.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
6.         We have gone through the entire record and heard the arguments addressed by the Ld. Counsel for the Parties.
7.         Through the present complaint, the Complainant has alleged, when he presented the Cheque of Rs.2,00,000/- drawn on the Vijaya Bank for clearance with the OP-Bank, the OP-Bank telephonically informed him that his current account had been put on hold for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- on the request of the Vijaya Bank. The Complainant took follow-up actions in the form of letters, reminders and even legal notice, but the same did not fructify.
8.         The stand taken by the Opposite Party is, after the request of the Vijaya Bank only as per Annexure R-2, the payment was stopped. Since the account of the Complainant was not having the available amount i.e. Rs.2,00,000/- at that time, therefore, the account of the Complainant was put on hold for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- in anticipation that whenever there would be sufficient balance in the account, it would be debited and transferred to the Vijaya Bank through Demand Draft.
9.         Undoubtedly, per Annexure R-2 the Opposite Party was requested by the Vijaya Bank to stop the payment for the Cheque presented by the Complainant. The Opposite Party has clarified the situation that the amount of the said Cheque was already credited into the account of the Complainant and since the account of the Complainant was not having the available amount, therefore, his account was put on hold for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- in anticipation that whenever there would be sufficient balance in the account, it would be debited and transferred to the Vijaya Bank through Demand Draft. We are of the concerted opinion that the Bank operates through internal arrangements with other Banks in order to ensure smooth functioning and convenience to its customer. In the present situation, the OP-Bank was helpless and rather, was bound to put the account of the Complainant on hold as it received written request from the Vijaya Bank to do so.
10.         It is relevant to add here, it was for the Complainant to take appropriate steps to raise the issue with the Vijaya Bank instead of litigating with the OP-Bank. Even if the Opposite Party was at fault in adopting the proper systematic procedure for its customers, it was a must to implead the Vijaya Bank as a party to get the clarification on the entire issue.
11.         Per pleadings of the Opposite Party the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was put on hold on the request of the Vijaya Bank whose Cheque was issued by one Vishwakarma Aluminum & Fabricators.
12.         Per record, admittedly, the Cheque was of the Vijaya Bank and payment was also told to be stopped on the request of drawer of the Cheque Vishwakarma Aluminum & Fabricators. The Complainant neither arrayed the Vijaya Bank nor the Vishwakarma Aluminum & Fabricators who has drawn the Cheque in favour of the Complainant. It seems that something has been concealed by the Complainant in not making the Vijaya Bank and Vishwakarma Aluminum & Fabricators as party to the present complaint.
13.         At any rate, the presence of said Vijaya Bank and Vishwakarma Aluminum & Fabricators are vital and important in the present lis to assist this Forum to reach at just and logical conclusion. In our opinion, the Complaint is thus bad for non-joinder of necessary parties namely the Vijaya Bank and Vishwakarma Aluminum & Fabricators.
14.         In view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party. Accordingly, the present consumer complaint is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
15.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced

12^th February,2020                            

Sd/-

(RATTAN SINGH THAKUR)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

MEMBER

 “Dutt”