Haryana

Kurukshetra

254/2017

Kiran Pal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Canara Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Vishal Madan

08 May 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

                                                     Complaint Case No.254 of 2017.

                                                     Date of institution: 8.12.2017.

                                                     Date of decision: 08.05.2019.

 

Kiran Pal son of Shri Krishan Lal, resident of village & Post Office Bargat, Tehsil Babain, District Kurukshetra.

…Complainant.

                        Versus

Canara Bank, Branch office Babain, District Kurukshetra through:-

1. Swaraj Kumar, Branch Manager,
2. Sandeep, Accountant
3. Isha, Accountant

….Opposite parties.

Before:      Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.

                Ms. Neelam, Member.

                Sh. Sunil Mohan Trikha, Member.

 

Present:     Sh. Vishal Madan, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                Ms. Purnima Malhotra, Advocate for opposite parties.

ORDER

                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Kiran Pal against the Canara Bank through Sh. Swaraj Kumar, Branch Manager etc. the opposite parties.

2.            Brief facts of the present complaint are that complainant is having saving account No.2228101007249 in Canara Bank and is customer of the bank. That the complainant was given one cheque bearing no.079701 dated 27.4.2017 of Rs.1,50,000/- of Canara Bank, Mahesh Nagar, Ambala by one Bal Ram Aggarwal and the complainant presented the said cheque for depositing the same in his above mentioned saving account in the Canara Bank Branch Office Babain on 27.4.2017 itself. That the complainant was of the view that the said cheque will be got encashed through the said Branch in routine process and the amount of the same will be deposited in the saving account of the complainant. That on 1.8.2017, the complainant visited the said Branch and at that time, all the ops were present there and they handed over a memo of dishonour of cheque dated 1.8.2017 to the complainant and returned the said cheque to the complainant and it is mentioned in the said memo that the said cheque has been dishonored on account of “Funds insufficient” on 1.8.2017. It is further averred that complainant asked the ops that when the said cheque was presented for encashment on 27.4.2017 itself, then as to why the memo of dishonor of cheque was not given to the complainant immediately. Then ops collectively responded that they were having the cheque in their custody and as the said cheque was also of Canara Bank, therefore, they all thought that the same can be got encashed any time. When the complainant asked them that due to their negligence he has suffered a monetary loss of Rs.1,50,000/-, all the ops started taking the matter lightly and tried to escape from the liability. The complainant has also video recording of the said chat with ops. It is further averred that it is not understandable that in which capacity, the ops have dishonored the said cheque on 1.8.2017 on the ground of funds insufficient, when in fact as per the banking guidelines, a cheque after expiry of three months cannot be presented in the bank and in the present case, the last date for presentation of cheque in time was 26.7.2017 and hence, it is ample clear that the ops considering that the complainant belongs to a rural area and will not be conversant of the banking procedure, handed over the memo of funds insufficient to the complainant on 1.8.2017. It is further averred that on the basis of said memo, as the same has been issued after expiry of time of presentation of the said cheque, the complainant is not in a position to initiate any proceedings against the drawer of the cheque and it seems that all three ops have colluded with the said person and intentionally in order to cause financial harm to the complainant kept the cheque with them. That the complainant served a legal notice dated 8.8.2017 on the ops in this regard and the said notice was duly received by the ops but they gave two replies through two different Advocates which proves that the defence taken by ops is not proper. That the complainant also filed a complaint in this regard to the Superintendent of Police, Kurukshetra but to no effect. That it is quite clear that the ops from the very beginning had the intention to play fraud with the intention to cheat him. Hence, this complaint.

3.             On notice, opposite parties appeared and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability, cause of action, locus standi, estoppal and that complaint is bad for mis joinder and non joinder of the necessary party and that complainant has not approached to this Forum with clean hands and has concealed the true and material facts, as such he is not entitled for any discretionary relief. The true and material facts of the case are that every bank after receipt of cheque from its customers present the same in the concerned bank on the same day in due course of banking business in the respective bank accounts. Similarly, after receipt of the cheque No.079701 by the bank on 1.8.2017, the cheque was presented in the A/C No.3031.101.37253 of Shri Balram Aggarwal on the same very date i.e. on 1.8.2017 but the said cheque was dishonored being “Stale” and due to ‘Fund insufficient” in the bank account of Balram Aggarwal. Thereafter, entry in the dishonor register of the bank was made of the said cheque and the dishonor memo of the cheque was issued by the bank on the same very day i.e. on 1.8.2017 to the complainant with the remarks of “Stale” as well as “ Funds insufficient”. Hence, the ops are not at fault. It is further submitted that complainant is intentionally trying to put the blame on the ops regarding dishonor of cheque on 1.8.2017, whereas complainant himself is at fault, who presented the said cheque on 1.8.2017. It is further submitted that complainant never visited the branch office on 27.4.2017. It is specifically denied that complainant has suffered any loss on the part of ops rather it is complainant who himself is negligent of presenting the said cheque after expiry of the time period of the cheque. The op presented the stale cheque in routine in the account of the executants of the cheque but the same was dishonored and accordingly the memo was issued to the complainant by op on the same very day. Remaining contents of the complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.

4.             The complainant tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C17. On the other hand, learned counsel for op tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and document Ex.R1.

5.             We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.

6.             Learned counsel for the complainant has contended that it is an admitted fact between the parties that complainant is having saving account No.2228101007249 in Canara Bank branch office Babain, District Kurukshetra i.e. with the opposite parties and as such he is consumer of the ops. He has further contended that complainant deposited a cheque bearing No.079701 dated 27.4.2017 of Rs.1,50,000/- given by one Bal Ram Aggarwal with the ops on the same day i.e. 27.4.2017 for encashment of the same in his account but when the said cheque was not got encashed for a long time, he visited to the branch of ops and inquired about the same upon which the above said three officials of the bank handed over a memo of dishonor of cheque dated 1.8.2017 to the complainant and returned the said cheque to the complainant on the ground of funds insufficient. He has further contended that the officials of the bank have caused negligence towards the complainant in sending the cheque for encashment after expiry of three months. He has further contended that if the said cheque dated 27.4.2017 was presented in the bank on 1.8.2017, the same could not be accepted because as per banking guidelines, a cheque after expiry of three months cannot be presented in the bank. He has further contended that the ops have wrongly pleaded that said cheque was presented on 1.8.2017 and same was taken in routine in order to save their skin and they have caused huge financial loss to the complainant as complainant is not in a position to initiate any proceedings against the drawer of the cheque and prayed for acceptance of the complaint.

7.             On the other hand, learned counsel for ops has contended that the story put forth by the complainant is false and frivolous. The complainant presented the said cheque on 1.8.2017 and upon receipt of the cheque in question, the same was presented in the account of Shri Balram Aggarwal on the same date i.e. 1.8.2017 but the said cheque was dishonored being Stale and due to fund insufficient in the bank account of Balram Aggarwal. He has further contended that it is the complainant who is at fault in presenting the cheque after expiry of relevant time and the said cheque was presented in routine in the account of the executant and now complainant is putting blame upon the officials of the bank and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

8.             We have considered the rival contentions of the parties and have perused the case file carefully.

9.             There is no dispute that complainant is consumer of the opposite party (s) bank. The complainant has placed on file a copy of filled in form of the bank Ex.C1 for depositing the cheque No.079701 of Rs.1,50,000/- and on the form the date is mentioned as 27.4.2017. On the copy of receipt of the cheque Ex.C6, the date is mentioned as 27.4.2017. The original cheque in question dated 27.4.2017 was presented in the bank and a photocopy of the same is placed on file by the complainant as Ex.C2 and in the back of the same, the complainant has requested the bank to deposit the same in his account and the said Photostat copy bears the signatures of the complainant with date as 27.4.2017 with his mobile number. The memo of return of cheque Ex.C3 mentions the date of return of cheque as 1.8.2017. We find no substance in the contention of ops that cheque in question dated 27.4.2017 was presented by the complainant on 1.8.2017 because a cheque after expiry of three months cannot be accepted by the bank. There are instructions of the Reserve Bank of India that cheques presented after three months from the date of issue would not be accepted in banks and this would be effective from April 1, 2012. So, we are of the considered view that ops in order to save their skin have pleaded that complainant was at fault in presenting the cheque after expiry of prescribed period and it cannot be said that said guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India were not in the knowledge of the ops. The act and conduct of the officials of the ops have caused deficiency in service and financial loss to the complainant as complainant cannot take legal recourse as per law against the person who given the cheque of Rs.1,50,000/- to the complainant and as such the ops are liable to pay the said amount to the complainant.

10.            In view of the above, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to pay the above said amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to the complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the complainant will be entitled to interest @9% per annum from the date of order till actual realization. We also direct the ops to further pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the complainant for harassment, mental agony and litigation expenses. A copy of said order be supplied to the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.           

Announced in open Forum:

Dt.: 08.05.2019.                                                  (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                        President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Neelam)       

Member                             Member.