BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.24 of 2019

      Date of Instt. 22.01.2019

      Date of Decision: 07.02.2023

Kanta Devi aged about 59 years wife of Late Sh. Bakshi Ram, resident of H. No.137, Guru Gobind Singh Avenue, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

Canara Bank, BMC Chowk (Main), Jalandhar, Through its Branch Manager.

….….. Opposite Parties

          Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj             (President)

                   Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon       (Member)   

Present:       Sh. Saurabh K. Gupta, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.

Sh. Rakesh Dhir, Adv. Counsel for OP.

Order

Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)

1.                This complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that the complainant is holding bank A/c No. 2338103050480 in O.P. bank branch and she was issued cheque book including cheque No.501385 by OP bank branch. The complainant had to make payment to M/s Bawa Steels and accordingly, she issued cheque bearing No.501385 dated 03.09.2018 for Rs.1,25,700/-in favour of Bawa Steels, drawn on O.P. bank branch. The complainant was maintaining sufficient account balance as on date of issuance of cheque and even thereafter. Aforesaid cheque was presented by M/s Bawa Steels and on presentation, it was dishonoured by O.P. bank with the remarks ‘Funds Insufficient’ and said cheque was returned dishonoured vide memo dated 06.09.2018 issued by O.P. bank. On dishonour of cheque, complainant received a legal notice u/S 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 dated 10.09.2018, wherein it was asserted by M/s Bawa Steels that complainant has committed an offence u/S 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and said offence is punishable with imprisonment upto two years or with fine. That perhaps, it was in knowledge of OP that the complainant was having sufficient account balance, but OP dishonored the cheque on its presentation, thus OP acted negligently while rendering services and committed default in performance of its duties as enshrined in Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Under the provisions of Act ibid, it was known to O.P. that the drawee of a cheque having sufficient funds of the drawer in his hands properly applicable to the payment of such cheque must pay the cheque when duly required so to do but O.P. failed to comply with the statutory duty and has breached the faith and acted negligently. Due to said negligent act of O.P., complainant suffered huge loss apart from loss of reputation and character. Wrongful dishonour of cheque was nothing short of character assassination of complainant, as on receipt of notice under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, complainant suffered huge humiliation and it has brought dishonour and disrepute and complainant had to undergo extreme mental agony, tension and she suffered huge harassment due to O.P. negligent and deficient services by dishonouring the cheque, inspite of having sufficient credit balance existing on the date of presentation. She could not attend her daily routine life for about a month, as fear crept in her mind that she has to apply for bail in case, criminal prosecution is launched on the basis of wrongful dishonour of aforesaid cheque. So, in order to avoid any possible criminal prosecution, she had to borrow amount on interest basis from her known ones and she paid cheque amount along with interest @ 9% p.a. to M/s Bawa Steels. So, O.P. acts of dishonouring of cheque inspite of having sufficient credit balance amount of deficiency in services. The complainant has suffered loss on account of immense damage, injury on account of negligent and deficient services, apart from harm to her reputation and mental agony, deprivation of status amongst relatives, friends and society, which cannot be compensated in terms of money. Legal notice was also served upon the OPs, but all in vain and as such necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to make payment of Rs.5,00,000/- towards wrong dishonor of cheque, legal expenses, mental agony and tension suffered by the complainant for deficient services on part of OPs.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the OP, who filed reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable as neither the complainant is consumer qua the OP nor there is any deficiency or negligence in services on the part of the OP. The Account in question bearing No.2338103050480 belongs to Mr. Rajesh Kumar Daroch. It is further averred that the complaint under reply is a gross abuse of the process of law. The complainant has filed the complaint with the sole motive of pressurizing and harassing the answering OP to submit to the unreasonable and mischievous demands of the complainant. The complainant has suppressed and concealed the material facts from this Commission. Hence, the complainant has not approached this Commission with clean hands and is thus not entitled to any relief. It is further averred that the complainant is ex-facie misconceived, vexatious, untenable and devoid of any merit. The complainant in order to raise premeditated, false and frivolous dispute has filed the present complaint in order to harass the answering OP. It is further averred that this Commission has no jurisdiction to try, entertain or decide the present complaint. It is further averred that the complainant does not falls under the definition of Consumer, as already submitted above. Moreover, the complainant had filed the present complaint on false and concocted facts and the complainant himself is a wrong doer and it is settled law that a person cannot take benefit of his own wrongs, omissions and commissions. It is further averred that the present complaint is time barred, as the complainant as well as Mr. Rajesh Kumar Daroch were in knowledge of the seizure of accounts by the bank due to illegality on the part of late Bakshi Ram as well as Rajesh Kumar Daroch since 2016 and now the present complaint is being filed after the expiry of two years from the date of knowledge. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this score alone. The real facts are that the complainant is wife of late Shri Bakshi Ram i.e., Ex. DGM of Canara Bank. Mr. Rajesh Kumar Daroch is son of late Shri Bakshi Ram and complainant, who is having bank Account No.2338103040580 in his name. late Sh. Bakshi Ram while in service after pre mature closure of three F.D.R [N.R.O] and five [FCNR) in the name of Shri Ramesh Daya Naran, transferred the funds to the extent of Rs.1.70 crores in aforesaid account of Mr. Rajesh Kumar Daroch on 16.10.2013 without the consent of Shri Ramesh Daya Naran, illegally and unethically. The said amount remained parked in the account of Rajesh Kumar Daroch from 16.10.2013 till 2nd July 2014. Subsequently after nine months gap i.e., the amount of Rs. 1.70 crore were transferred back in the account of Sh. Ramesh Daya Naran in the form of four FDRs. Shri Ramesh Daya Naran when visited India and came to know about the unethical act, the said amount has been disputed by Shri Ramesh Daya Naran and he has also filed a complaint before the Banking Ombudsman Chandigarh in which advisory has been issued against the Bank to pay the notional interest on FD for broken period to Shri Ramesh Daya Naran. The liability was on account of unauthorized transaction done by deceased in connivance with Mr. Rajesh Kumar Daroch and his other family members including the complainant, upon which the beneficiary of the account also earned interest. It is also revealed, that the act of pre-mature closure of FDR and FCNR by late Sh. Bakshi Ram was deliberate and in order to benefit his son/Sh. Rajesh Kumar Daroch. That the above said arrangement of funds to the extent of Rs.1.70 crores in the account of Rajesh Kumar Daroch was done to procure U. K. Visa, which action was totally unethical besides being illegal. While complying with the order of Banking Ombudsman Chandigarh the amount payable to Sh. Ramesh Daya Naran has been arrived at Rs.32.70 lakhs. Accordingly after complying with the Banking Ombudsman advisory, the amount of Rs.32,67,115/- were paid to Shri Ramesh Daya Naran and the matter was taken up with Rajesh Kumar Daroch in U.K. where he has been presently residing and he was in knowledge of seizure of his accounts and he has been requesting the bank time and again for lifting the seizure and to allow operations to him, hence Sh. Rajesh Kumar Daroch and Smt. Kanta Devi widow of late Bakshi Ram were completely in knowledge of all these facts since 2016 and now at such a belated stage the complainant and her son cannot take the present baseless plea of ignorance, when such a huge amount was credited in his account for period between 16.10.2013 to 2.7.2014 Sh. Rajesh Kumar Daroch and he has taken the benefit of aforesaid amount in getting the visa from U.K. Embassy, which he otherwise would not have. Thus, Sh. Rajesh Kumar Daroch has utilized the funds parked in his account detailed above to the extent of Rs.1.70 crores, which did not belong to him and actually belong to Sh. Ramesh Daya Naran. As the bank deals with the public money, the bank has to tread cautiously and resultantly the bank on account of the above said illegality had frozen two accounts of Sh. Rajesh Kumar Daroch bearing No.2338103050480 having balance of Rs.11.70 lakhs and Account No.0347407000073 having balance of Rs.25.90 lakhs on 27.06.2016, which is still continuing. The present complaint has been filed on the basis of false and concocted facts and the entire events mentioned in the complaint under reply are result of connivance between complainant, her son Rajesh Kumar Daroch and their men of convenience. The complainant has not suffered any loss as has been alleged therein, the account has been frozen due to the above mentioned facts and the bank has rightly frozen the accounts of the account holder. On merits, all the allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.

3.                Rejoinder not filed by the complainant.

4.                In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties have produced on the file their respective evidence.

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the case file very minutely.

6.                The complainant has filed the present complaint alleging the deficiency in service by the OPs in not honouring the cheque issued by the complainant. The complainant has alleged that she was having sufficient amount in her account and issued a cheque, but the bank wrongly returned the cheque as dishonoured, vide memo dated 06.09.2018. She has proved on record Ex.C-1 the statement of account, copy of cheque Ex.C-2, return memo Ex.C-3. She has also proved the legal notice and receipts showing that despite the notice and the acknowledgment given by the OPs, no step has been taken by the OPs to clear the cheque. She has proved on record the legal notice Ex.C-5, acknowledgment by the OPs Ex.C-6 and submitted that by dishonouring the cheque, the OPs have harassed her and tortured her mentally. They are negligent in giving services to the consumers, therefore has sought the compensation towards wrong dishonouring of cheuqe alongwith legal expenses and etc.

7.                The case of the OP is that there is no deficiency in service, negligence or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. The husband of the OP was the bank employee and he committed a fraud by transferring the amount of Rs.1.70 crore of some NRI in his account without the instruction of the NRI and inquiry was ordered to be conducted qua him and this fact was well within the knowledge of the complainant as well as her son. FIR was also registered against the husband of the OP. Earlier also a cheque was issued by the OP and the fact of freezing the account was well within the knowledge of the OP. Therefore, there is no deficiency. He has relied upon the documents issued by the bank and the proceedings conducted by the bank regarding the recovery of the amount of Rs.1.70 crore.

8.                Perusal of Ex.C-1, the account statement shows that the account is in the name of Rajesh Kumar Daroch and the joint holder is the complainant i.e. Kanta Devi. It is not disputed that there was an amount in the account of the complainant. It is also not disputed that a cheque Ex.C-2 was issued by the complainant on 03.09.2018, which was dis-honoured, vide memo Ex.C-3. Perusal of Ex.O-3 shows that Ramesh Daya Naran, who was having the account with the OP, wrote a letter to the bank manager regarding the transfer of the amount of Rs.1.70 crore without his instructions and he has also written that from that account, in which the amount was transferred, after nine months i.e. on 02.07.2014 four fixed deposits were made for Rs.1.70 crore. This letter was written on 07.05.2016. As per Ex.O-5, the displinary proceedings were contemplated against Sh. Bakshi Ram, the husband of the complainant, Deputy General Manager for the alleged act of mis-conduct committed by him while working as Assistant General Manager at BMC Chowk, Jalandhar Branch. An FIR Ex.O6 was registered against Bakshi Ram. Ex.O-7 shows after due inquiry, letter was written to the general manager by recovery and legal action circle office regarding legal action to be taken with regard to the account number 2338103050480 and 034740700073 in the name of Sh. Rajesh Kumar Daroch i.e. the son of the complainant and the legal action suggested to be taken against the son of the complainant was recommended. As per Ex.O-7, it has clearly been mentioned that on account of the transactions i.e. on account of premature liquidation of 3 FDRs and 5 FCNRs during 2013 amounting to Rs.1.70 crore, which was transferred in the account of Rajesh Kumar Daroch and he enjoyed the funds in his account, the two accounts were frozen. Letter to the British High Commission was also written stating the mis-conduct and illegally transferring the amount in the account of the son of the complainant, vide Ex.O-8. The fact was brought to the notice of the son of the complainant i.e. account holder Rajesh Kumar Daroch, vide Ex.O-10 by the Bank Branch and Rajesh Kumar Daroch gave reply vide email mentioning therein that his accounts have been frozen without his consent and acknowledgment, meaning thereby that he was well within the knowledge of the fact that his accounts have been frozen and he was also in the knowledge of the fact the reasons for freezing the accounts. Ex.O-9 shows that earlier also in the year 2017, the cheque was dishonoured and the intimation was given to the complainant intimating that the account number 2338103050480 of Rajesh Kumar has been blocked, vide letter dated 02.06.2016 and a cheque has been dishonoured in clearing due to hold of funds in the account. All the correspondence and documents filed on record by the OPs, prove this fact that the account in question was frozen by the OPs as the funds of Rs.1.70 crore were illegally transferred in the account of the complainant’s son, who is the main account holder. Earlier also the cheque was dishonoured, but despite that the present cheque was again issued without getting the release of the hold from the account of the complainant. The complainant never challenged that the account has been illegally frozen and the cheque has been wrongly dishonoured by the OP. There is no order to show that the hold on the account has been released by the OPs. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and as such, the complaint of the complainant is without merits and thus, the same is dismissed with no order of costs. Parties will bear their own costs. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

9.                Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated                             Jaswant Singh Dhillon                    Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj     

07.02.2023                    Member                                President