Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/75/2019

Canara Bank - Complainant(s)

Versus

Beant Singh Arora - Opp.Party(s)

Nitin Gupta Adv.

28 Oct 2021

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

 

Appeal No.	:	75  of 2019
Date of Institution	:	16.04.2019
Date of Decision	:	28.10.2021

 

 

Canara Bank, SCO No.117-119, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh, through its General Power of Attorney Sh.Yogesh Kumar, Manager.

……Appellant

V e r s u s

1. Beant Singh Arora son of Late Sh.Raghubir Singh, R/o House No.5099/3, Category-III, Modern Housing Complex, Manimajra, Chandigarh.      

 

2. Chandigarh Housing Board, 8, Jan Marg, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh through its Chairman.

 

3. ICICI Bank, SCO No.6, Sector 11, Panchkula, through its Chief Manager/Branch Manager.

…..Respondents

Present through Video Conferencing:-

Sh. Nitin Gupta, Advocate for the appellant.

Sh. Sandeep Jasuja, Advocate for respondent no.1/complainant.

Sh. Vishal Sodhi, Advocate for respondent no.2-CHB.

Sh. Jatin Khullar, Advocate for respondent no.3.        

============================================================

 

 

Appeal No.	:	103 of 2019
Date of Institution	:	27.05.2019
Date of Decision	:	28.10.2021

 

 

ICICI Bank Ltd., SCO No.6, Sector 11, Panchkula, through its Chief Manager/Branch Manager/Legal Manager

……Appellant

V e r s u s

1. Beant Singh Arora son of Late Sh.Raghubir Singh, R/o House No.5099/3, Category-III, Modern Housing Complex, Manimajra, Chandigarh.     

 

2. Chandigarh Housing Board, 8, Jan Marg, Sector 9-d, Chandigarh through its Chairman.

 

3. Canara Bank, SCO 117-119, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh, through its Chief Manager/Branch Manager.

…..Respondents

Present through Video Conferencing:-

Sh. Jatin Khullar, Advocate for the appellant.

Sh. Sandeep Jasuja, Advocate for respondent no.1/complainant.

Sh. Vishal Sodhi, Advocate for respondent no.2-CHB.

Sh. Nitin Gupta, Advocate for respondent no.3.    

============================================================

BEFORE:             JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

                             MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

                             MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

 

PER  RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

                   These appeals have arisen out from the impugned order dated 11.03.2019 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (now known as District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T., Chandigarh) (in short ‘District Commission’), whereby the consumer complaintbearing no.384 of 2018 filed by Sh.Beant Singh-complainant (now respondent no.1 in both the appeals) was allowed by the District Commission in the following manner:-

“9]      The Canara Bank deserves severe deterrent reprimand but keeping into its stature being a public institution, a lenient view is being taken by this forum by allowing the present complaint with following directions :-

a)    The Opposite Party No.3/Canara bank shall pay a compensation of Rs.5 lakhs to the complainant on account of mental harassment and agony.

(b)    The ICICI Bank, Sector 11 PANCHKULA/Opposite Party No.2 shall retrieve the amount of ₹1,50,000/- which is reported to be in RBI Delhi and pay the same to the complainant with interest at the rate of 9% per annum with effect from 12/06/2001 till payment to the complainant.

The opposite parties No. 2 and 3 shall comply with this order within 30 days from date of receipt of copy of this order.”

2.           The case of the complainant before the District Forum was that he was allotted a Flat No.5099, 3^rd Floor, Category-III, Modern Housing Complex, Manimajra, Chandigarh vide registration No.3882 and at that time, the consideration of said flat was Rs.3 lacs and the complainant was supposed to pay Rs.2891/- as monthly installments. Opposite Party No.1 vide letter dated 27.7.1994 enhanced the cost of flat from Rs.3 lacs to Rs.3.71 lac and as such enhanced the rate of monthly installment from Rs.2891/- to Rs.4402/-.  The said action of Opposite Party NO.1 was challenged by the complainant and other allottees in the High Court and the matter is still pending.  It was further stated that Opposite Party No.1 had given option to the allottees to either pay the lump sum amount as enhanced or to pay monthly installment of Rs.4402/- w.e.f. 10.8.1994.  However, the complainant started paying monthly installment of Rs.2891/- to Opposite Party No.1 (Ann.C-1). It was further stated that the complainant took the possession of the said flat on 29.7.1994 and since then he is living there. It was further stated that although the complainant was paying the installments regularly, yet due to enhancement of amount, there was some arrears pending and in order to clear the same, the complainant got prepared a pay order No.006569, dated 12.6.2001 of Rs.1,50,000/- in the name of Opposite Party No.1 from his saving bank account with Opposite Party No.2/ICICI Bank, Sector 11, Panchkula (Ann.C-2).  It was further stated that thereafter, the said draft was submitted in the account of Opposite Party No.1 with Opposite Party No.3/Canara Bank against receipt dated 13.6.2001 (Ann.C-3). It was further stated that in the year 2007, Opposite Party No.1 computerised its record and informed the complainant vide letter dated 12.2.2007 to compare/check his accounts with accounts of Opposite Party No.1 and in case of any discrepancy get the same corrected  (Ann.C-4). It was further stated that the complainant, after comparison, submitted details of the amount paid by him and specifically pointed out that the entry of Rs.1.5 lacs deposited by him at Sr.No.45 is missing (Ann.C-5). It was further stated that Opposite Party No.1 vide letter dated 18.5.2009 raised demand of Rs.3,24,313/- in which Rs.1,09,433/- was demanded on account of penalty/interest   (Ann.C-7). It was further stated that Opposite Party No.1 despite letter dated 4.4.2016 did not adjust the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- deposited by the complainant in its account with Canara Bank through pay order against receipt (Ann.C-12). 
3.           It was further stated that when the complainant approached Opposite Party No.3 to enquire about the pay order/missing entry of Rs.1.5 lacs, they replied vide letter dated 29.4.2016 that they have destroyed all the record after 10 years of transaction (Ann.C-14).  It was further stated that after much persuasion, the Manager of ICICI Bank informed the complainant that when the pay order is not cleared for 10 years, the amount of the same is deposited with Reserve Bank of India, as per instructions.  It was further stated that Opposite Party No1. Vide letter dated 24.1.2017 informed the complainant that as per report of its Accounts Section, the pay order of Rs.1.50 lacs had not been encahsed and credited in the account of flat of the complainant and it had no objection if the RBI refunds the said amount (Ann.C-20). It was further stated that thereafter, the complainant arranged all the required documents and submitted the same to Opposite Party No.2 for reimbursement of Rs.1.50 lacs from RBI vide letter dated 3.3.2018.  It was further stated that in spite of overwhelming efforts of the complainant regarding the entry of payment of Rs.1.50 lacs through pay order by him in respect of his flat, Opposite Party No.1 did not give any concrete information regarding the receipt of the said amount till the issuance of letter dated 24.1.2017 and when Opposite Party No.1 clarified about non-receipt of the said amount, it did not make any effort to make  enquiry from its own bank/opposite party No.3, where the amount of Rs.1.5 lacs was deposited by the complainant against duly issued receipt as the Opposite Party No.3 being the bank of Opposite Party No.1.  It was further stated that Opposite Party No.1 was duty bound to make the said enquiry and Opposite Party No.3 was also bound to provide the said information. It was further stated thateven Opposite Party No.2 was also supposed to give information to the complainant if the amount of the pay order was not encashed by Opposite Party No.1 and more especially when Opposite Party No.2 had sent the said amount to RBI, if it had so happened.  It was further stated that the said inactions on the part of Opposite Parties amounted to deficiency in service on their part.  Hence, complaint was filed before the District Commission.
4.           On the other hand, Opposite Party No.1-Chandigarh Housing Board in its reply before the District Commission, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that the receipt of Rs.1,50,000/- as claimed by the complainant has been first time submitted on 18.10.2016 and as per the statement of account pertaining to the flat of the complainant, no such payment amount has been received till date in the office of Opposite Party No.1 either due to the fault of the complainant or of the Bank.  It was admitted that the demand of Rs.3,24,313/- was raised  vide letter dated 18.5.2009 as per the terms & conditions of the allotment letter as there was default in payment of installments.  It was further stated that Opposite Party No.1 vide letter No.5534/36 has written to Canara Bank, Sector 17, Chandigarh and ICICI Bank, Sector 11, Panchkula, to inform as to whether Rs.1.50 lacs pay order has been credited in the account of CHB at any time.  It was further stated that the complainant was well informed that Rs.1,50,000/- was never received and further that Opposite Party No.1 has issued letter dated 9.8.2016 to Canara Bank as well as ICICI Bank, but no reply has been received. It was further stated that since no payment had been received in the office of Opposite Party No.1, so it was entitled to recover the same along with interest and penalty. 

                   Opposite Party No.2 - ICICI Bank, in its reply, stated that the complainant got prepared banker’s Cheque No.006569, dated 12.6.2001 amounting to Rs.1,50,000/- from it in the name of Opposite Party No.1 from his saving bank account and as such, the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was deducted from the account of the complainant and banker’s cheque, so prepared was handed over to the complainant.  It was further stated that Opposite Party No.2 has no concern with the handing over of the banker’s cheque to Opposite Party No.3, as the same was the responsibility of the complainant how to deal with it, after getting the banker’s cheque prepared.  It was further stated that the complainant had closed his account on 14.12.2011 with Opposite Party No.2. It was further stated that the complainant had submitted the required documents in June, 2018 but the said banker’s cheque was not traceable being the old dated record and the record of more than 10 years has already been destroyed. 

5.           Opposite Party No.3 - Canara Bank did not turn up despite service of notice, hence, it was proceeded exparte by the District Commission vide order dated 10.9.2018.
6.           Hence these appeals have been filed by the appellants.
7.           We have heard the arguments of the contesting parties and have also gone through the entire record of the cases and written arguments very carefully.
8.           The facts that respondent No.1 (complainant) was allotted the flat in question by Chandigarh Housing Board; taking over of possession thereof  on 29.7.1994; preparation of pay order No.006569 dated 12.6.2001 for Rs.1,50,000/- in the name of Chandigarh Housing Board-Opposite Party No.1 by the complainant from his saving bank account with Opposite Party No.2 - ICICI Bank, Sector 11, Panchkula (Annexure C-2) arrears of enhancement of amount; submission of draft to Opposite Party No.3 - Canara Bank against receipt dated 13.6.2001 (Annexure C-3) for credit of the said amount in the account of Chandigarh Housing Board-Opposite Party No.1 and that Opposite Party No.3 - Canara Bank failed to do so have not been disputed. It is also submitted that thereafter, it has been informed to the complainant that the amount aforesaid has been deposited with Reserve Bank of India, as per instructions, as the same remained unclaimed for 10 years. Thereafter, the complainant arranged all the required documents and submitted the same to Opposite Party No.2 for reimbursement of Rs.1.50 lacs from RBI vide letter dated 3.3.2018 yet it failed to do so.  
9.          It may be stated here that the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- had been deducted from the account of the complainant in the transaction aforesaid meaning thereby that he was deprived of use of the said amount irrespective of the fact that the same was not forwarded by Canara Bank to Chandigarh Housing Board or not.
10.           Perusal of record reveals that the Chandigarh Housing Board in its reply in Para-15 has stated that they have written to the Canara Bank vide letter dated 09.08.2016 but the Canara Bank did not give any reply to that. However, Canara Bank, Chandigarh vide its letter dated 29/04/2016 informed the complainant that all record pertaining to the period dated 30th of June 2001 has been weeded out and no details with reference to remittance of Rs.1,50,000/-for credit to the account of Chandigarh Housing Board is available with it. However, it is further evident from the record that the Canara bank has not denied the voucher dated 13/06/2001-Annexure C-3 of its own meaning thereby that it had not denied the receipt of draft on 30/06/2001 vide C.A. No.4217 for credit into the account of Chandigarh Housing Board, yet, it negligently failed to deposit the amount in the account of the Chandigarh Housing Board which is maintained in the Canara Bank. There is definitely a gross negligence on the part of Canara Bank in the discharge of its duties, which cannot be ignored. However, despite deemed service, the Canara Bank preferred not to defend the case and as such, an adverse inference can easily be drawn that it has nothing to say in its defence and was deficient in provide service to the complainant for which it is liable to compensate the complainant for the loss incurred by him. The District Commission was also right in holding so.
11.           Against opposite party No.3 – Canara Bank, the District Commission, awarded compensation, to the tune of Rs.5 Lakhs for mental harassment and agony, caused to the complainant. In our considered opinion, compensation, in the sum of Rs.5 Lakhs, could certainly be said to be on the higher side. In Surendra Kumar Tyagi Vs. Jagat Nursing Home and Hospital and Another, IV (2010) CPJ 199 (N.C.), the principle of law, laid down, by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, was to the effect that the compensation should be commensurate with loss and injury, suffered by the complainant. The compensation is required to be fair, just and not unreasonable and arbitrary. The Consumer Foras are not meant to enrich the Consumers, at the cost of the service provider, by awarding unfair, unreasonable and highly excessive compensation. The principle of law, laid down, in Surendra Kumar Tyagi’s case (supra), is fully applicable to the facts of the instant case. The District Commission, thus, granted excessive amount of compensation, to the complainant. In this view of the matter, if compensation, in the sum of Rs.2 Lakhs, is granted to the complainant, that would not only be fair and reasonable, but also commensurate with the injury suffered by him. It is held that the complainant is entitled to compensation, in the sum of Rs.2 Lakhs  instead of Rs.5 Lakhs as awarded by the District Forum. To this extent, the impugned order needs to be modified.
12.           The District Commission was further right in directing the ICICI Bank, Sector 11-Panchkula/Opposite Party No.2 to retrieve the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- which is reported to be in RBI Delhi and pay the same to the complainant with interest at the rate of 9% per annum with effect from 12/06/2001 till payment to the complainant. Had the ICICI Bank been diligent enough, it would have contacted the complainant who was its customer only and informed him that the amount of the draft has not been credited to Chandigarh Housing Board and its lying floating and was later on transferred to the RBI.  As such, plea taken by ICICI bank to exonerate it from this case does not merit acceptance.
13.           For the reasons recorded above, the appeal filed by Canara Bank bearing No.75 of 2019 is partly allowed and Relief clause (a) of Para 9 of the impugned order is modified to the extent that the appellant/Opposite Party No.3 (Canara Bank) shall now pay a sum of Rs.2 Lakhs to the complainant, as compensation for mental harassment and agony, instead of Rs.5 Lakhs as awarded by the District Commission. The other reliefs granted and directions given by the District Commission vide the impugned order shall remain intact.
14.   However, the appeal filed by opposite party No.2 (ICICI Bank Ltd.)bearing No.103 of 2019 stands dismissed with no order as to cost.  
15.           Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge and one copy thereof be placed in the connected file.
16.           The files be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced                       

28.10.2021.

[RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

 (PADMA PANDEY)

          MEMBER

 

 

 

(RAJESH K. ARYA)

MEMBER

 Ad.