Punjab

Faridkot

CC/17/32

CHANCHAL RANI - Complainant(s)

Versus

Canara Bank - Opp.Party(s)

V.K. monga

05 Sep 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

Complaint No. :         32

Date of Institution :    25.01.2017

Date of Decision :       5.09.2017

Chanchal Rani aged about 32 years divorced w/o Gagandeep Batra r/o Hira Singh Nagar, Kotkapura now, r/o Handloom Street, Surgapuri, Kotkapura, District Faridkot.                                                                   

.....complainant

Versus

1. Canara Bank, Moga Road, Kotkapura, District Faridkot through its Branch Manager.
2. Ratan Lal, Branch Manager, Canara Bank, Kotkapura, District Faridkot.
3. Minakshi, Bank Official, Canara Bank, Moga Road, Kotkapura, District Faridkot.                                                                               

                                                                                           ......OPs

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum:     Sh Ajit Aggarwal, President,

Sh P Singla, Member.

Present:       Sh Vinod Monga, Ld Counsel for Complainant,

 Sh Ravinder Parkash Goyal, Ld Counsel for OPs.

 

(Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                                              Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OPs seeking directions to OPs to pay Rs.1,60,000/- with interest and for further directing OPs to pay Rs.20,000/-as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by her besides Rs.15,000/-as litigation expenses to complainant.

2                                                 Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant is having account with OPs and she was  issued cheque book against this account. It is submitted that on 28.11.2016, she deposited Rs.7,50,000/-into OPs bank and also informed them that her cheque book containing blank signed cheques has been lost and instructed them to stop payment and they recorded this thing in their record and also assured complainant that they would not make payment on the basis of old cheques including cheques bearing no.476625 and 474626. On 23.12.2016, complainant saw that there were two messages dated 21.12.2016 and 23.12.2016 from OPs conveying her that  cheques bearing no.476625 and 474626 were presented for payment but returned by bank with reason that cheques not issued. On 28.12.2016, complainant herself visited the bank to know that who presented those cheques and there she came to know that Rs.1,10,000/- and Rs.50,000/-have been transferred from her account in favour of one Rajinder Kumar and Dhiraj Mehta of Kotkapura on the  basis of cheques for which payment was requested to be stopped by complainant. complainant never issued cheques bearing no.476625 and 474626 in favour of these persons and when she asked OP-2 and 3 about this fact, they refused to listen her. Complainant also served legal notice to OPs to which they replied on wrong pleas. OPs have made wrong transferred her money to Rajinder Kumar and Dhiraj Mehta and has caused financial loss of Rs.1,60,000/-to her, which amounts to deficiency in service and complainant has also suffered huge harassment and mental tension due to this act of OPs. She has prayed for compensation and litigation expenses along with main relief. Hence, the complaint.

3                                                    Ld Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 30.01.2017, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

4                                                   On receipt of the notice, OPs filed written statement taking preliminary objections that complaint is bad for misjoinder of OP-2 and OP-3 and for non joinder of necessary parties i.e Rajinder Kumar and Dhiraj Mehta in whose favour cheques bearing no.476625 and 474626 were credited and moreover, she is stopped by her own act and conduct to file the present complaint as she herself got cleared the cheques bearing no.476625 and 474626 from bank and now, she has filed a false complaint on frivolous allegations and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. However, on merits, Ops have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that she never informed them about the loss of her cheque book containing cheques bearing no.476625 and 474626 and she also never instructed them to stop payment for these cheques. Complainant wants to obtain benefit from the messages which have been wrongly send to her due to some electronic error. It is submitted that cheque bearing no.476625  dt 21.11.2016 for Rs.1,10,000/- was cleared on 22.12.2016 in favour of Dhiraj Mehta and  cheque  no. 474626 dt 1.12.2016 for Rs.50,000/-was cleared in favour of Rajinder Mehta on 23.12.2016 by smt Chanchala Rani herself by inward clearing. Cheques in question were issued from duly issued cheque book and were also signed by her and properly presented by payee. Complainant has herself issued and got cleared these cheques and now she has made a false story. It is further averred that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of answering opposite party. All other allegations and the allegation with regard to relief sought too were refuted with a prayer that complaint may be dismissed with costs against the answering opposite party.

5                                              Parties wanted to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings and proper opportunity was given to them. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to C-13 and then, closed his evidence.

6                                                     In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Counsel for OP tendered in evidence affidavit of Rattan Lal, Branch Manager as Ex. OP-1 and documents Ex OP-2 to 6 and then, closed the evidence.

7                                                Ld Counsel for complainant argued that complainant is having account with OPs and she was  issued cheque book against this account. It is submitted that on 28.11.2016, she deposited Rs.7,50,000/-into OPs bank and also informed them that her cheque book containing blank signed cheques has been lost and instructed them to stop payment and they recorded this thing in their record and also assured complainant that they would not make payment on the basis of old cheques including cheques bearing no.476625 and 474626. On 23.12.2016, complainant saw that there were two messages dated 21.12.2016 and 23.12.2016 from OPs conveying her that  cheques bearing no.476625 and 474626 were presented for payment but returned by bank with reason that cheques not issued. On 28.12.2016, complainant herself visited the bank to know that who presented those cheques and there she came to know that Rs.1,10,000/- and Rs.50,000/-have been transferred from her account in favour of one Rajinder Kumar and Dhiraj Mehta of Kotkapura on the  basis of cheques for which payment was requested to be stopped by complainant. complainant never issued cheques bearing no.476625 and 474626 in favour of these persons and when she asked OP-2 and 3 about this fact, they refused to listen her. Complainant also served legal notice to OPs to which they replied on wrong pleas. OPs have made wrong transferred her money to Rajinder Kumar and Dhiraj Mehta and has caused financial loss of Rs.1,60,000/-to her, which amounts to deficiency in service and complainant has also suffered huge harassment and mental tension due to this act of OPs. She has prayed for compensation and litigation expenses along with main relief.

8                                                     To controvert the allegations of complainant, ld counsel for OP argued that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OPs. It is argued that complaint is bad for misjoinder of OP-2 and OP-3 and for non joinder of necessary parties i.e Rajinder Kumar and Dhiraj Mehta in whose favour cheques bearing no.476625 and 474626 were credited and moreover, she is stopped by her own act and conduct to file the present complaint as she herself got cleared the cheques bearing no.476625 and 474626 from bank and now, she has filed a false complaint on frivolous allegations and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. However, on merits, Ops have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that she never informed them about the loss of her cheque book containing cheques bearing no.476625 and 474626 and she also never instructed them to stop payment for these cheques. Complainant wants to obtain benefit from the messages which have been wrongly send to her due to some electronic error. It is submitted that cheque bearing no.476625  dt 21.11.2016 for Rs.1,10,000/- was cleared on 22.12.2016 in favour of Dhiraj Mehta and  cheque  no. 474626 dt 1.12.2016 for Rs.50,000/-was cleared in favour of Rajinder Mehta on 23.12.2016 by smt Chanchala Rani herself by inward clearing. Cheques in question were issued from duly issued cheque book and were also signed by her and properly presented by payee. Complainant has herself issued and got cleared these cheques and now she has made a false story. It is further averred that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of answering opposite party. All other allegations and the allegation with regard to relief sought too were refuted with a prayer that complaint may be dismissed with costs against the answering opposite party.

9                                                           We have heard learned counsel for parties and have very carefully perused the affidavits & documents placed on the file by complainant as well as opposite party.

10                                                                The case of complainant is that she is an account holder with OPs and have been issued a cheque book by OPs. On 28.11.2016, she deposited some amount with Ops and reported them that her duly signed cheque book has been lost and this cheque also contained cheques bearing no.476625 and 474626 and also told them to stop payment against these numbers. Grievance of complainant is that OPs made payment against cheques bearing no.476625 and 474626 in favour of Rajinder Mehta and Dhiraj Mehta of Kotkapura to whom she never issued any cheque. In reply, OPs stress mainly on the point that complainant never informed them about lost of her cheque book containing cheques bearing no.476625 and 474626 and moreover, she herself got cleared these cheque in favour of said Rajinder Mehta and Dhiraj Mehta by inward clearing and now she has concocted a false story to gain undue monitory advantage from OPs by presenting false stories. Ld Counsel for OPs argued that on the same cause of action, complainant filed a complaint before SSP, Faridkot and thorough enquiry was conducted by Police officials and in this enquiry, Police recorded the statement of complainant, bank officials and others. In her statement before Police, the complainant herself admitted that she borrowed money from Rajinder Kumar and Dhiraj Mehta and in security of that amount, she issued cheques in question in favour of said Rajinder Kumar and Dhiraj Mehta whereas in this complaint she concealed this fact and stated that her cheques in question have been lost and gave false statement. Copy of statement of complainant before Police is Ex OP-1/3. Police also recorded the statement of Meenakshi, clerk of OPs Bank who is also impleaded as OP-3 in present complaint. She also stated before Police that these cheques were duly issued by complainant and she cleared these cheques on the personal instructions of complainant. Police also recorded the statement of Rajinder Kumar in whose favour the cheque was issued. He stated before the Police that complainant borrowed some money from him and to return that amount, she issued cheques in question in favour of him and his son and now,  she is making a false story regarding loss of these cheques. Copy of complaint filed by complainant before Police is Ex OP-1/5. Statement of Meenakshi is Ex OP-1/6 and statement of Rajinder Kumar is Ex Op-1/4. The said Rajinder Kumar also filed his affidavit in this complaint in which he stated that complainant issued the cheques in question for repayment of amount which she borrowed from him and his son Dhirah Mehta. Complainant duly issued these cheques against her legal enforceable debt towards Rajinder Kumar and his son. Complainant intentionally did not implead said Rajinder Kumar and Dhiraj Mehta as party in present complaint who are the actual beneficiaries of cheques in question. The bank cleared the cheques in due course of their business. The present complaint cannot be decided summarily. There is need for detail facts and cross examination of witnesses which cannot be decided before this Forum having summary nature as complainant has filed the present complaint on false grounds.

11                                               Ops have prayed for dismissal of complaint. We have gone through facts and evidence placed on record by all the parties. The case of complainant is that she has an account with OPs bank and her cheque book containing signed cheques was lost and she informed about this fact to OPs but despite it, OPs bank cleared two cheques out of those cheques which amounts to deficiency in service. On the other hand, OPs argued that complainant never informed them regarding loss of her cheque book and they cleared cheques in question on the instructions of complainant. they further argued that she filed a complaint before SSP, Faridkot for same cause of action and during enquiry she suffered statement before Police officials that she herself issued those cheques in favour of Rajinder Kumar and Dhiraj Mehta against loan taken by her from them and now, she has made up a false story. Even she did not implead said Rajinder Kumar and Dhiraj Mehta in whose favour said cheques were issued as party to this complaint.

12                                                 From the above discussion, we are of considered opinion that there are rival contentions of both the parties and for deciding the case, voluminous evidence and expert opinion is required. Evidence of witnesses Rajinder Kumar, Dhiraj Mehta and bank officials of OP bank is also required alongwith their cross examination to ascertain the genuineness of complaint whereas procedure before this Forum is of summary nature and evidence of witnesses and their cross-examination cannot be done in this Forum. Our Hon’ble National Commission, observed in case 2014 (1) CLT, page 481 titled as M/s Heights Trade (P) Ltd Vs UCO Bank, wherein Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi observed that  Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 13- Summary Procedure. Complicated questions-Jurisdiction-Intricate and complicated questions involved in the case. It would be difficult to decide the case on mere documents. The evidence of experts and record has to be looked into. These questions must be discussed by an appropriate forum or civil court. The Consumer Commission must refrain from arrogating those powers which it does not possess.

13                                                                Therefore, in the light of above discussion and case law produced by parties, this Forum is of considered opinion that present complaint involves complicated questions of law and facts that cannot be decided in summary procedure. Adequate evidence and cross examination of all parties is required and therefore, complaint case in hand is hereby disposed of with liberty to complainant to file it afresh before appropriate civil court. Time period consumed during the proceedings in this Forum be excluded while considering limitation for filing complaint before Civil Court. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of costs as per law. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Forum:

Dated: 5.09.2017

Member                          President                        (P  Singla)                      (Ajit Aggarwal)