Delhi

North East

CC/81/2016

Rajender Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager, Central Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

07 May 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 81/16

 

In the matter of:

 

	Shri Rajender Singh S/o Sh. Megh  Singh R/o: I-26/1, Street No. 10, Brahampuri, Delhi-110053.	Complainant
	Versus
	Bank Manager Central Bank of India Branch Ghonda, Delhi-110053.	Opposite Party

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:               DATE OF DECISION      :

14.03.2016 24.04.2018 07.05.2018

 

N.K. Sharma, President

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

Ravindra Shankar Nagar, Member

Order passed by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

ORDER

1. Case of the complainant is that he has a savings account bearing No. 1031617102 with the OP bank which is currently operational. The complainant had deposited a court fees return voucher issued by stamp collector SDM, Seelampur for a sum of Rs. 3,715/- on 10.09.2015 with the OP. On visiting the OP branch on 10.12.2015 for some bank related work, when the complainant got his passbook updated, he acquired knowledge that there was a debit Rs. 114/- from his account on 11.09.2015 and the above mentioned court fees voucher credit was not reflecting in his account. On enquiry from the bank officials by the complainant, he was not given any satisfactory reply but was inform orally that his voucher had been returned un-encashed and lying with OP. When the complainant asked the OP officials for written explanation/ reason for return of voucher, they refused to give the same nor did they returned the court fees voucher with return memo through post to the complainant. When the complainant asked about the debit of Rs. 114/- from his account, the OP informed that it was towards the services charges for voucher deposit whereas as per the records, the voucher was never deposited in the account of the complainant. The complainant submitted a written complaint to the OP on 14.12.2015 and got the same duly received by the branch manager of OP but no action was taken on the said complaint by the OP. The complainant lodged written complaint with the Banking Ombudsman and RBI on 21.12.2015 and received replies dated 12.01.2016 and 09.02.2016 from Banking Ombudsman and RBI respectively wherein he was informed that his complaint has been forwarded to the concerned bank (OP). The complainant has further stated that on 22.02.2016, the complainant received a call from the OP office when he was asked to collect his court fees voucher alongwith the return memo which the complainant collected on 23 -24 February 2016 from the OP bank which was returned vide returned memo issued by CBI Chandni Chowk Branch, Delhi dated 20.02.2016 vide clearing no. 9589. The complainant has stated that on seeing that the court fees return voucher, it is evident that the OP had sent the said voucher on 01.02.2016 vide clearing no. 9589 to the Treasury which had returned the same vide returned memo dated 20.02.2016 with certain objections therein to the OP bank. Thereafter, the complainant took the said voucher alongwith return memo with an application to the concerned stamp collector / SDM, Seelampur and deposited the same on 25.02.2016. The complainant has alleged that the OP officials have deliberately and despite complaints and due deposit of court fees return voucher by the complainant on 10.09.2015, withheld the said voucher with them till 31.01.2016 and did not send it to the concerned bank / Treasury for clearing. The complainant has further alleged that the OP has lied about the debit of Rs. 114/- as being services charges for the said voucher whereas the same was never sent for clearing. Therefore the complainant has filed the present complaint alleging carelessness, irresponsible behavior, dereliction of duty and deficiency of service which has caused financial, mental and physical pain and agony to the complainant as also cheating and breach of trust. The complainant therefore vide the present complaint has prayed for directions to the OP to pay a sum of Rs. 80,000/- as compensation for damages, Rs. 19,000/- towards cost of litigation and refund of Rs. 114/- which has been wrongly debited by the OP bank back to the complainant’s account.

Complainant has annexed refund voucher receipt, counter foil of deposit of voucher with OP, photocopy of passbook alongwith entries highlighting debit of Rs. 114/- and no credit of court fees voucher of Rs. 3,715/- reflecting therein, complaint to the branch manager of OP dated 14.12.2015, complaints to banking ombudsmen and RBI dated 21.12.2015, reply dated 12.01.2016 by banking ombudsman and reply by RBI dated 09.02.2016, return memo dated 20.02.2016 with respect to the court fees voucher, refund voucher receipt no. 9589 bearing OP endorsement dated 01.02.2016, letter to the stamp collector/ SDM, Seelampur dated 25.02.2016.

2. Notice was issued to the OP which entered appearance on 22.04.2016 where complaint alongwith annexures was supplied to the OP for filing reply on 17.05.2016 however on 17.05.2016, OP sought further time and was given last opportunity by this Forum to file reply on 27.05.2016 failing which its defence would be struck off. On 27.05.2016, the Quorum was not complete and the matter was adjourned for 11.07.2016 when the OP filed its written statement. The OP took the preliminary objection that the complainant had failed to submit the memorandum issued by collector of stamps alongwith the refund voucher because of which the refund voucher presented by the complainant to the OP was returned by the Pay & Accounts Officer No. VI, Tis Hazari, Delhi which was informed to the complainant and when the complainant resubmitted his refund voucher alongwith the memorandum on 07.04.2016, the same was encashed and therefore the delay in payment was due to the incomplete documents submitted by the complainant and OP cannot be held responsible. OP further took the defence that the complainant had deposited the voucher in question with OP on 07.09.2015 which was sent to Chandni Chowk Branch of OP on 10.09.2015 for collection which intern sent the same to the treasury. The said challan was however returned by the treasury with the endorsement that the original copy of memorandum issued by COS, the copy of the verification report and the complete bank formalities along all the documents in original be sent. The complainant was duly informed of the aforesaid objections of the Treasury on his visit to the branch. The OP further took the defence that the debit of Rs. 114/- was towards the difference of amount charged on the return of cheque No. 9031 of Rs. 7,000/-. The OP further submitted that the complainant had deposited the fresh memorandum issued by SDM on 04.04.2016 on 07.04.2016 with OP bank. The OP has attached the copy of voucher slip dated 07.09.2015, copy of letter dated 10.09.2015, copy of refund voucher receipt bearing treasury endorsement, copy of memorandum dated 04.04.2016 issued by collector of stamp and pay-in  slip dated 07.04.2016 alongwith its written statement in support of its defence.    
3. Complainant filed rejoinder and evidence by way of affidavit on 12.08.2016 in which the complainant took the objection of the written statement being time barred as per clear guidelines of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the statutory mandate of CPA that the written statement has to be filed within 45 days of receipt of notice since the OP had received notice on 22.04.2016 and filed its reply on 11.07.2016 and therefore there was a delay of 78 days in filing written statement. Further the complainant stated that due to typographical error the voucher deposit date has been erroneously written as 10.09.2015 instead of 07.09.2015. The complainant however reiterated the OP had sent the said voucher on 01.01.2016 to the treasury concerned for encashment as can be seen from the records. The complainant rebutted the defence of the OP of having issued any cheque no. 9031 and stated that the day Rs. 114/- was debited from his account he had a balance of Rs. 6,09,346/- in his account therefore there was no question of return / dishonor of Rs. 7,000/- cheque as allege by the OP.
4. Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by the complainant reiterating his grievance in the complaint.     
5. On 03.10.2016, OP filed its evidence exhibiting the annexures filed alongwith the written statement and also moved an application for condonation of delay in filing the written statement to which this Forum had given its observation that the same shall be taken care of at the stage of final arguments.
6. The complainant filed reply to the application moved by the OP for condonation of delay in filing written statement and stated that the OP despite appearing before this Forum on 17.05.2016 and 27.05.2016 did not file the written statement within the prescribed time limit and even if the quorum was not complete due to leave of the President or Member, the OP could have filed its reply and submitted the same to the reader or the staff of the court but deliberately did not do so despite the reply being ready and affidavit attested and further opposed the filing of reply by OP on 10.07.2016 when it had ample opportunity to file the same between 27.05.2016 to 10.07.2016 by way of advance copy to the complainant by post.   
7. Written arguments were filed by both the parties. The complainant objected to the admissibility of the written statement as being time barred and not maintainable and stated that the OP has no written record pertaining to dispatch of the court fees voucher in question to the concerned treasury and has not placed any document on record before this Forum. The complainant further argued that the OP has not placed any documentary evidence on record to explain the reason in writing for return of the voucher in question or failure to dispatch the same alongwith returned memo to the complainant.

The OP in its written arguments reiterated its defence taken in the written statement and evidence.

8. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and have carefully perused the documentary evidence placed on record by both the parties to the present complaint.

The first issue which has to be decided in the present case is whether the defence of OP be permissible to be taken on record or not. From the perusal of order sheet it is evident that the OP did not file its written statement on 27.05.2016 which was the last and final opportunity granted to the OP to file its reply since it was in receipt of the complaint on 22.04.2016 and was well aware of the statutory mandatory period of 45 days granted under CPA to file written statement from date of receipt of notice. The OP filed its reply on 11.07.2016 to which the complainant vide rejoinder had taken objection of admissibility as being time barred and filed after delay of 78 days. Therefore, the OP had moved application for condonation of delay in filing written statement which has to be adjudicated upon at this stage of disposal of the matter. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd Vs Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt Ltd I (2016) CPJ 1(SC) = ix (2015) SLT 692 = Civil Appeal Nos. 10941-10942 of 2013 has opined that the statutory period of 45 days prescribed in the act for filing the written version cannot be extended under any circumstances, and the consumer fora would be well advised to be extra careful in recording its satisfaction regarding service of notice on the OP. The Hon’ble NCDRC in Country Colonisers Pvt Ltd vs Sunil Goel I (2017) CPJ 270 (NC) had also given its observations on the above mentioned landmark judgment passed by the Apex Court. Further the Hon’ble National Commission in Dr. Rabindra Nath Jana vs Alpana Bera Sasmal and Ors. II (2017) CPJ 170 (NC) has held that consumer fora has no jurisdiction to extend the period of the limitation of 30 days provided under section 13 (2) (a) of CPA beyond a further period of 15 days. Therefore, in light of law settled and as per clear directions laid under section 13 (1) (a) read with 13 (2) (a), we strike off the defence of the OP off the records in the present case which includes its written statement and evidence by way of affidavit.

9. On merits, the complainant has established his case of deficiency of service against the OP on the basis of documentary evidence placed on record by him and ironically the documentary evidence relied upon by OP also do not come to their rescue in as much as it is clearly established that the court fees refund voucher which was deposited by complainant in September 2015 was forwarded by OP for clearance to the concern treasury in February 2016 vide their own endorsement no. 9589 and no communication/explanation  regarding the delay or reason for return was placed on record by OP or sent to the complainant. In SBI vs Anand Parkash (2007) III CPJ 95 (NC), the Hon’ble National Commission held in a case where the complainant had alleged the cheque was deposited but amount was not credited held that there was no evidence to show cheque forwarded by service branch to complainant and the bank cannot shift and evade liability for loss of cheque and payment. In Karisan and Company Vs CBI II (2007) CPJ 107 (NC) Hon’ble National Commission had held in a case where exporter receive payment which was credited in his account by the bank after a delay of 23 days, that there was un-explain delay in crediting amount and hence bank was guilty of negligence.
10.  In light of the settled law and the documentary evidence placed on record, we have applied our judicial mind and are of considered opinion that the OP bank is guilty of deficiency of service as they have miserably failed to explain why there was a delay of 4 months in sending the court fees return voucher of the complainant for clearance to the treasury as also any explanation for the debit of Rs. 114/- made from the account of the complainant against alleged cheque return notwithstanding that the defence of the OP is being struck off at the final stage of the proceedings but their approach towards the present case has been rather lackadaisical, careless, unprofessional and speaks volumes of deliration of duty in as much as the OP should have duly deposited the court fees voucher with the concerned treasury and any defect therein regarding memorandum of voucher report etc could have been intimated to the complainant so that earnest steps could have been taken to avoid the present litigation.
11. We therefore allow the present complaint of the complainant and direct the OP to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as compensation for mental agony and damages and Rs. 10,000/- as cost of litigation to the complainant within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order. Failing which OP shall be liable to pay penal interest @ 9% on the total awarded amount of Rs. 35,000/- from the date of order till realization to the complainant.              
12.  Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
13.   File be consigned to record room.
14.   Announced on 07.05.2018

 

(N.K. Sharma)     President

(Sonica Mehrotra) Member

On Leave (Ravindra Shankar Nagar) Member