Haryana

Ambala

CC/219/2019

Jatinder Thakur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Head PNB - Opp.Party(s)

O.P Thakur

16 Oct 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

Complaint case no.	:	219 of 2019
Date of Institution	:	17.07.2019
Date of decision	:	16.10.2023

1. Jatinder Thakur, Aged 51, Resident of 18-B new Janakpuri, Ambala Cantt. State Haryana Present at Omxegren, 109, GT 4, Ambala Chandigarh Highway, Lalru, Tehsil Derabassi, Distt Mohali [Punjab]
2. Varinder Thakur Aged 47 R/o Resident of 18-B new Janakpuri, Ambala Cantt. Haryana Present at Omaxegren, 109, GT 4, Ambala Chandigarh Highway, Jharmari, Tehsil &, Distt Mohali [Punjab]

          ……. Complainants.

                                                                   Versus

1. Punjab National Bank, Branch Court Road, Ambala City Through its Branch Manager.
2. Punjab National Bank, Branch Brown Road, Ludhiana [Punjab] Through its Branch Manager.
3. Punjab National Bank, American Tower, 7 Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi Through its Chairman Cum Managing Director.

                                                                                   ….…. Opposite Parties.

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                     Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member.

          Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.           

 

Present:       Shri Vishwadeep Thakur, Advocate, counsel for the complainants.

                      Shri Sanjay Gupta, BM with Shri Ashwani Nandra, Advocate, counsel for OPs No.1 to 3.

 Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

1.                Complainants have filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

1. To pay Rs 50,000/- debited from the account of the complainants.
2. To pay Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation to the complainants because of financial loss, inconvenience, mental agony harassment;
3. To pay Rs.25,000/- as cost of litigation.
4. Grant any other relief, which this Hon’ble Commission may deems fit. 

2.            Brief facts of the case are that the complainants are having joint saving account number 3255000100049247 in the name of Jatinder Thakur and Varinder Thakur with OP No.1 since long time. It came to the notice of the complainants that an amount of Rs.50,000/- has been debited on 25 July 2017.  As such, they visited the office of OP No.1, in November 2017 and raised their grievance qua above withdrawal of Rs.50,000/- from their account, upon which, they came to know that the said amount for Rs.50,000/- stood withdrawn on 25.07.2017 from Ludhiana Branch of OP No.2 through Como Transfer Voucher. The complainants sought information under Right information Act 2005 from the Central Public information officer o/o Punjab National Bank, Zonal office Ferozepur Road Ludhiana and demanded copy of instrument on the basis of which, the amount of Rs.50,000/- stood debited from their account on 25.07.2017. It was only on receipt of the said information that the complainants came to know from the combo Transfer Voucher dated 25.07.2017 that OP No.2 had debited the sum of Rs.50,000/- from the account of the complainants bearing no.3255000100049247 and credited the same to account number 3014009500000019 without verifying the signature of complainant no.1 and on the other hand, the said signatures were forged. When the grievance of the complainants was not redressed, they served legal notice dated 11.07.2019 upon the OPs but to no avail. Hence, the present complaint.

3.                Upon notice, OPs No.1 and 3 appeared and filed written version and raised preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, no cause of action, no locus-standi, not come with clean hands and suppressed the true and material facts and jurisdiction etc. On merits, it has been stated that the complainants being holder of joint Saving Account No.3255000100049247 were very much aware about the transaction of Rs.50,000/-, which took place from the Punjab National Bank, Branch at Ludhiana. Moreover, when the transaction alleged to have taken place on 25.07.2017, so the question of informing about debiting of Rs.50,000/-,to the complainants by OP No.1 in January, 2017 does not arise at all. Since the transaction took place at Ludhiana PNB, therefore, OPs No.1 and 3 are not at fault in any manner.  Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by the OPs No.1 and  3 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with costs.

4.                 Upon notice, OP No.2 also appeared and filed written version and raised preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, no cause of action, no locus standi, not come with clean hands and suppressed the true and material facts and jurisdiction etc.  On merits, it has been stated that complainants were having joint account with OP No.1 and  the alleged transaction of Rs.50,000/- took place on 25.07.2017 from Punjab National Bank, Ludhiana Branch i.e. OP No.2 and this fact has been in the knowledge of the complainants since beginning being joint Account holder.. The said amount was withdrawn by Shri Varinder Thakur, who is joint account holder with the complainant no.1, through Voucher. The complainants were very much aware about debiting the alleged amount from their joint saving account and the same was credited in the account no.3014009500000019 as per instructions of joint account holders. Rest of the averments of the complainants were denied by the OP No.2 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with costs.

5.                 Learned counsel for the complainant’s tendered affidavit of complainants No.1 and 2 as Annexure CA to CB alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-14 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainants. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs No.1 and 3 tendered affidavit of Kamal Chand Goel, Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank, Branch Near Manav Chowk, Ambala City as Annexure R-A alongwith documents as Annexure R-1 and R-2 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs No.1 and 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP No.2 tendered affidavit of Sanjay Gupta, Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, Brown Road, Ludhiana (Punjab), as Annexure RW2/A alongwith documents Annexure R-3 to R-7 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.2.

6.                 We have heard the learned counsel for the complainants and learned counsel for the OPs No.1 to 3 and have also carefully gone through the case file.

7.                 Learned counsel for the complainants submitted that it was on account of gross negligence on the part of the OPs that amount of Rs.50,000/- was disbursed from the account of the complainants maintained by the OPs, based on forged signatures of the complainant on Combo Transfer Voucher, Annexure C-3 and at the same time, by not redressing the grievance of the complainants, despite making number of requests in the matter, the OPs have committed deficiency in providing service, negligence and also adopted unfair trade practice. 

8.                 On the contrary, the learned counsel for the OPs while reiterating their objections taken in their respective written version submitted that the alleged transaction took place on 25.07.2017 from PNB, Ludhiana, yet, there is no deficiency in providing service, negligence or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs because Varinder Thakur himself had withdrawn the said amount, through the said transfer voucher after appending his signatures.

9.                 It may be stated here that though the parties are leveling allegations on each other i.e. the complainants are contending that Rs.50,000/- was debited from the account in question maintained by the OPs Bank, based on forged signatures of complainant no.1 on Combo Transfer Voucher, Annexure C-3, whereas, on the other hand, the OPs  are  contending with vehemence that it was complainant no.1 only, who withdrew the said amount of Rs.50,000/- after appending his signatures on the Combo Transfer Voucher in question.

It is significant to mention here that during pendency of this complaint, the complainants had moved an application before this Commission for appointment of handwriting expert to examine writing cum signatures on the Combo Transfer Voucher in question, which had been allowed by this Commission vide order dated 19.09.2022 and Mr.Mani Jain, Documents and Forensic Expert was deputed in the matter. The relevant record of this complaint was provided to Mr. Mani Jain, who vide his detailed report dated 1/2/2023, Annexure C-9, opined that he has sufficient grounds to establish that the disputed signatures marked on the voucher in question does not tally with the standard signatures of Jitender Thakur/complainant no.1 and that the disputed signatures are forged signatures made by forgery by memory. Relevant part of the said report is reproduced hereunder:-

“……The above mentioned glaring points of differences present between the disputed and standard signatures are very much clear and prominent and they are much beyond the range of natural variations.

The cumulative effect of the above reasonings is sufficient ground to establish that the disputed signature marked Q1 on Voucher dated 25/7/2017 does not tally with the standard signatures of Jitender Thakur marked S1 to S11 referred to above and the disputed signature marked Q1 is a forged signature made by forgery by memory.

SUBMITTED BY,

(MANI JAIN)

EXAMINER OF QUESTIONED DOCUMENTS……….”

10.               Thus, the above report dated 1/2/2023, Annexure C-9  leaves no doubt with this Commission to hold that the said amount of Rs.50,000/- was never withdrawn by the complainants, through the said Combo Transfer Voucher, but, the same was withdrawn by someone by appending forged signatures of complainant no.1 on the said Combo Transfer Voucher.  Perusal of Form DA-1, Annexure C-7 and Combo Transfer Voucher, Annexure C-3, reveals that there is difference between the actual signatures of the complainant affixed on the Form DA-1 and the Combo Transfer Voucher. The officials of the OP No.2 i.e Ludhiana Branch failed to notice the said fact and disbursed the amount of Rs.50,000/-, from the account of the complainants, as such, it can easily be said that they were negligent in performing their duties and have committed deficiency in providing service. Thus, for the negligence/deficiency in service on the part of officials of OP No.2, the complainants cannot be made scapegoat. It is therefore held that the complainants are entitled to get refund of the amount of Rs.50,000/- from OP No.2 and that too alongwith interest and compensation.

11.               Since there is no deficiency in service or negligence has been found on the part of OPs No.1 and 3, and also it is an admitted fact that it was OP No.2 Bank at Ludhiana, wherefrom the said amount was withdrawn through the said forged signatures on the said Combo Transfer Voucher, Annexure C-3, therefore, complaint filed by the complainants against OPs No.1 and 3, liable to be dismissed.

12.               In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby dismiss the present complaint against OPs No.1 & 3 and allow the same against OP No.2 and direct it, in the following manner:- 

1. To pay the amount of Rs.50,000/- to the complainants, alongwith interest @6% p.a. from the date of debit of the same from their account till realization.
2. To pay Rs.3,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.
3. To pay Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses.

       The OP No.2 further directed to comply with the aforesaid directions within the period of 45 days, from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order, failing which the OP No.2 shall pay interest @8% per annum on the awarded amount, from the date of default, till realization. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

 Announced:- 16.10.2023

 

(Vinod Kumar Sharma)	(Ruby Sharma)	(Neena Sandhu)
Member	Member	President