Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/133/2012

Dilip Kumar s/o Sh.Ram Dev Parshad - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager PNB - Opp.Party(s)

Yashpal Sharma

30 Jan 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                                          Complaint No. 133 of 2012.

                                                                                          Date of institution: 06.02.2012    

                                                                                          Date of decision: 30.01.2017

 

Dalip Kumar aged about 25 years son of Sh. Ram Dev Parshad resident of 3/3, Hydel Colony, Yamuna Nagar.

 

…Complainant.

                                    Versus

 

1. The Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, New Grain Market, Yamuna Nagar.
2. Life Insurance Corporation of India, Opp. Madhu Hotel, Yamuna Nagar, through its Branch Manager.

                                                                                                         ...Respondents

 

BEFORE:        SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG…………….. PRESIDENT.

                         SH. S.C.SHARMA………………………….MEMBER.

 

Present:           Sh.Yashpal Sharma, Advocate for complainant.

                         Sh. G.S.Mehla, Advocate for respondent No.1

                         Sh. Rajiv Gupta, Advocate, counsel for respondent No.2. 

 

ORDER

 

1                        The present complaint has been filed by Sh. Dalip Kumar under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that the complainant is account holder of the account No. 2971000100041425 with the respondent No.1 (hereinafter respondents will be referred as OPs) i.e. Punjab National Bank and a cheque book was also issued to the complainant bearing cheque No. 258375 to 258400. To pay the premium amount of insurance policies bearing No. 173236762, 174796148, 176001726 and 176592289 complainant issued a cheque bearing No. 258395 dated 11.11.2011 amounting to Rs. 8638 and another cheque bearing No. 258396 dated 11.11.2011 for Rs. 4666/- drawn on OP No.1 Bank in favour of OP No.2 i.e. LIC of India, Yamuna Nagar. However, complainant received a letter dated 17.11.2011 on 21.11.2011 issued by the LIC of India/OP No.2 intimated therein that the aforesaid cheques issued by the complainant in favour of the LIC have been returned uncashed with the memo bearing the remarks that the cheques have not been issued by the OP No.1 branch. After receipt of the said letter, the complainant immediately approached to the office of the LIC and enquired the matter but the response of the official of the OP No.2 was very bad and they have not given any satisfactory answer to the complainant. It has been further mentioned that prior to the aforementioned cheques, the Op No.1 Bank has cleared a cheque bearing No. 258399 issued by the complainant but the status of cheque bearing No. 258397 and 258398 issued by the complainant have not been intimated by the OP No.1 Bank. It has been further mentioned that due to the dishonoured of the aforementioned cheques for the reasons stated above, the complainant has suffered a lot of mental agony physically and financially and also suffered great humiliation due to the aforementioned act and conduct of the OP No.1 Bank. The complainant has also got issued a legal notice on 29.11.2011 to the OP No.1 Bank but no reply of the notice has been given by the OP No.1. Even, thereafter, complainant also lodged his complaint on toll free number 1800 180222 of the Op No.1 Bank on 26.12.2011 and a complaint bearing No. 56851319 was given to the complainant. Even after that, complainant also made a complaint on toll free number but the Op No.1 Bank failed to remove the grievances of the complainant. Lastly, it has been prayed that OP No.1 Bank be directed to refund the amount of charging on account of dishonour of the cheque bearing No. 258395 dated 11.11.2011 and another cheque bearing No. 258396 dated 11.11.2011 and also to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses.

3.                     Upon notice, Ops appeared and filed its written statement separately. OP No.1 Bank filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable; the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum. The true facts are that the complainant had been issued a chque book by the OP No.1 Bank and the said cheque book has not been used by the complainant for a long time. In the meantime the OP No.1 Bank has introduced online banking system and as per the said system the cheque of any branch can be cleared from any branch. The OP Bank has tried to enter all possible record in the computer system for the smooth working of the computer and for the satisfaction of the customers. It has been further submitted that the cheque issued by the complainant to the LIC was presented for encashment before the Punjab National Bank Branch RCC Model Town, Yamuna Nagar and the said cheque book was not shown by the computer. So, the concerned person gave the remarks that the cheque book was not issued by the OP No.1 Bank to the complainant. The said fault was beyond the control of the Op Bank. When the complainant approached the Op No.1 Bank then the Op No.1 Bank checked the computer as well as manual record then it was found that the said cheque book was issued to the complainant by the Op Bank and the grievance, if any, caused to the complainant is beyond the control of OP No.1 Bank and on merit controverted the plea taken in the complaint and reiterated the stand taken in the preliminary objections. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint against the OP No.1 Bank.

4.                     OP No.2 filed its written statement besides the preliminary objections it has been stated on merit that insurance policies issued by the LIC of India is a matter of record, however, fact regarding issuance of cheques by the complainant for payment of premiums of the policies in question is not disputed. The issue of letter by Life Insurance Corporation of India relating to dishonour of the cheques relating to payment of premiums of the policies is also a matter of record. However, the OP No.2 has nothing to do with the dishonour of the cheque of the complainant. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

5.                     In support of the case, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW/A and documents such as photo copy of legal notice dated 29.11.2011 as Annexure C-1, Photo copy of acknowledgement as Annexure C-2, Photo copy of letters issued by the LIC to the complainant regarding intimation of dishonour of cheques as Annexure C-3 to C-6 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

6.                     On the other hand, Op No.1 failed to adduce any evidence, hence, evidence of OP No.1 Bank was closed by court order dated 09.03.2016.

7.                     Counsel for the Op No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. P.K.Saxena, Manager Legal, LIC of India as Annexure RW2/A and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.2.

8.                     We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file carefully and minutely.

9.                     The only grievances of the complainant is that complainant issued two cheques bearing No. 258395 dated 11.11.2011 amounting to Rs. 8638/- and another cheque bearing No. 298396 dated 11.11.2011 amounting to Rs. 4666/- against the premium of his LIC Policies in favour of OP No.2 but the same were dishonoured by Op No.1 Bank due to which the complainant has suffered financial loss on account of charges of the dishonour of the cheques as well as mental agony and harassment. Learned counsel for the complainant draw our attentions towards the letters issued by the LIC in which it was intimated to the complainant that cheque issued by the complainant was dishonoured and was requested to remit the amount of Rs. 8793/- alongwith bank charges of Rs. 155/- in favour of the LIC. Learned counsel for the complainant further draw our attentions towards the legal notice Annexure C-1 and lastly requested for acceptance of the complaint.

10.                   On the other hand, learned counsel for the Op No.1 Bank argued that there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of Op No.1 Bank due to electronic fault the said cheque book was not shown by the computer, so, the official of the Op No.1 Bank gave the remarks that cheque book has not been issued by the OP No.1 Bank to the complainant and the said fault was beyond the control of the OP No.1 Bank and lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint against OP No.1 Bank.

11.                   Learned counsel for Op No.2 also argued at length that the matter involved in the complaint is relating to Op No.1 Bank and complainant and Op No.2 have no concerned whatsoever and requested for dismissal of complaint against Op No.2.

12.                   After hearing both the parties, we are of the considered view that there is a deficiency in service on the part of Op No.1 Bank as from the perusal of the letters issued by the Op No.2 i.e. LIC of India Annexure C-3 to C-6, it is duly evident that cheque issued by the complainant were dishonoured by OP No.1 Bank and complainant was asked to remit the amount of Rs. 8793/- alongwith bank charges of Rs. 155/-. Further the Op No.1 Bank has also admitted in its written statement that due to the electronic fault, the said cheque book was not shown in the computer and the official of the Op No.1 Bank gave the remarks that cheque book was not issued by Op No.1 Bank to the complainant. Meaning thereby that the grievances of the complainant is genuine as to enter the cheque book in the computer system was the duty of the Op Bank and there was no fault on the part of the complainant. Hence, we are of the considered view that the cheque issued by the complainant was wrongly dishonoured by the Op Bank due to which the complainant might have suffered financial loss on account of charges of dishonour as well as mental agony and harassment. As such, complainant is entitled to get some relief.

13.                   Resultantly, in the circumstances noted above, we partly allow the complaint of complainant and direct the Op No.1 Bank to pay a sum of Rs. 5000/- in lump sum on account of expenses as well as mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses. However, complaint qua OP No.2 is hereby dismissed. Order be complied within a period of 30 days after preparation of copy of this order failing which complainant shall be entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum as per law. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Pronounced in open court: 30.01.2017.

                                                                                          (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                           PRESIDENT

                                                                                          DCDRF Yamuna Nagar

 

 

                                                                                          (S.C.SHARMA)

                                                                                           MEMBER