DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.

 

Complaint Case No : CC/04/2019

Date of Institution : 08.01.2019

Date of Decision : 01.10.2019

Paramjit Kaur aged 59 years wife of Harminder Singh son of Ruldu Singh resident of Rolki Patti, Ward No. 11, Tapa Mandi, District Barnala.                            …Complainant

Versus

1. Canara Bank, 112, JC Road, H.O. Banglore-560002 (Karnataka) through its Managing Director/Authorized Person.

2. Branch Manager, Canara Bank, Opposite Old Bus Stand, Tapa Mandi District Barnala-148108.

…Opposite Parties

Complaint Under Consumer Protection Act.1986.

Present: Sh. Lal Bihari Yadav counsel for complainant.

Sh. AK Jindal counsel for opposite parties.

Quorum.-

1. Sh. Kuljit Singh : President

2. Sh. Tejinder Singh Bhangu : Member

 

(ORDER BY TEJINDER SINGH BHANGU MEMBER):

    The complainant Paramjit Kaur has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Canara Bank, Banglore and another. (in short the opposite parties). 

2. The facts leading to the present complaint as stated by the complainant are that she is a subscriber of saving bank account with the opposite party No. 2 and was holding cheque No. 646 dated 20.10.2018 for Rs. 2,00,000/- issued by Pooravnchal Multi State Co-op. Society Limited drawn on ICICI Bank, Branch Railway Road, Zira and complainant deposited the said cheque in the said saving account on 12.11.2018.  

3. It is further alleged that on 19.11.2018 the opposite party No. 2 credited the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- in the said account of the complainant. The previous credit balance was Rs. 1,79,530.93 and after credit it comes to Rs. 3,79,530.93. It is further alleged that on the same day the cheque being returned online and opposite party No. 2 debited the account of the complainant for Rs. 2,00,000/- so withdrawn the said amount without consent or information to the complainant and credit balance was reduced to Rs. 1,57,924.93. The complainant had not filled any withdrawal slip, voucher or cheque. On inquiry, the Branch Manager told that the said cheque had been misplaced by the bank staff, so credited amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- has been withdrawn. The complainant requested the Branch Manager not to cause loss to the complainant due to negligence of the bank staff but to no effect. The complainant even contacted the authorities of Canara Bank over Toll Free No. 18004250018 but to no effect. This act of the opposite parties is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. Hence, the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.-

1) The opposite parties may be directed to pay Rs. 2,00,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 12.11.2018 till actual realization. 

2) To pay Rs. 50,000/- on account of mental tension, agony and physical harassment.           

3) To pay Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses.  

4) Any other relief this Forum deems fit. 

4. Upon notice of this complaint, opposite parties filed written version taking legal objections interalia on the grounds of no locus standi and cause of action, not come to the Forum with clean hands, abuse of process of law and bad for non joinder of necessary parties.  

5. On merits, opposite parties submitted that a credit balance of Rs. 1,79,530.93 paise was available in the account of complainant. However an amount of Rs. 21,500/- was debited in the account of complainant through NEFT. Further, she presented a cheque for clearance which was returned by the drawee branch as unpaid and amount credited of the cheque amount duly debited in the account of the complainant as usual and system of the bank and remaining balance of Rs. 1,57,924.93 paise is correct balance in the account of the complainant Paramjit Kaur. The amount was debited due to dishonour of the cheque which was earlier credited in the account of the complainant as per system of the bank as when any party presented the cheque for clearance the system of the bank credited the cheque amount in the account of the person who presented the cheque and if the cheque is dishonoured by the drawee bank then system of the bank automatically debited the cheque amount from the account of the concerned party. It is further submitted that the said cheque was lost in the bank branch and they immediately informed the complainant about this vide letter dated 29.12.2018 and also original memo dated 17.11.2018 which was received by opposite party No. 2 duly handed over to the complainant. So, there is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and lastly they prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint with costs. However, complainant has a remedy to file a complaint under Section 138 of NI Act against the person who issued the cheque in her favour and she can produce her evidence through secondary evidence but she cannot recover the cheque amount from the opposite parties. Lastly, they prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint with costs. 

6. In support of her complaint, the complainant tendered into evidence her own affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of cheque dated 20.10.2018  Ex.C-2, copy of deposit receipt Ex.C-3, copy of e-mail complaint Ex.C-4, copy of aadhaar card Ex.C-5, copy of passbook with statement Ex.C-6 and closed the evidence. 

7. To rebut the case of the complainant, the opposite parties  tendered into evidence affidavit of Rahul Singla Ex.OP-1.2/1, copy of deposit slip Ex.OP-1.2/2, copy of cheque return memo Ex.OP-1.2/3, copy  of OSC register Barnala Ex.OP-1.2/4, copy of statement of account  Ex.OP-1.2/5, copy of dispatch register Ex.OP-1.2/6, copy of letter dated 29.12.2018 Ex.OP-1.2/7 and closed the evidence.   

8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. Written arguments filed by the parties have also been gone through. 

9. It is admitted by the opposite parties that a credit balance of Rs. 1,79,530.93 paise was available in the account of the complainant out of which Rs. 21,500/- was debited through NEFT so the remaining balance comes to Rs. 1,57,924.93 paise. It is also admitted by the opposite parties that complainant presented a cheque for clearance but the same was returned by the drawee bank being unpaid so the amount of the cheque credited in account of the complainant was duly debited. However, it is admitted by the bank that the cheque which was presented for clearance by the complainant lost in the bank branch so a letter was written to the complainant on 29.12.2018 Ex.OP-1.2/7 in this regard but she refused to receive the same so the same was sent to her through registered post but even then she refused to receive the letter. However, the original memo dated 17.11.2018 was handed over to the complainant.

10. In the present case there is no dispute that bank lost the cheque of the complainant which was dishonoured by the drawer of the cheque. The only question before us how much loss complainant suffered from the misplacement of this cheque. 

11. The complainant prayed for Rs. 2,00,000/- alongwith interest due to loss of this cheque but in our opinion complainant is not entitled to this amount as she had a remedy to file a complaint under Section 138 of NI Act against the person who issued the cheque in her favour as opposite parties informed the complainant immediately after the return of cheque and provided original memo dated 17.11.2018 to her copy of which is Ex.OP-1.2/3. The bank also informed the complainant about loss of cheque vide letter dated 29.12.2018 Ex.OP-1.2/7. If she had  filed the said complaint under Section 138 of NI Act then she could have  produced her evidence through secondary evidence by impleading the opposite parties as a necessary party in the said complaint. Even, still she is having a remedy to recover the amount of cheque of Rs. 2,00,000/- from the issuing party by way of filing a recovery suit and in that suit she can implead the Canara Bank as a defendant for producing the evidence of misplacement of cheque and also impleading ICICI Bank as a party as in the Return Memo dated 17.11.2018 Ex.OP-1.2/3 they have mentioned two reasons for return of the cheque i.e. 01 Funds Insufficient and 50 Account Closed and only ICICI Bank can better explain the facts. 

12. Further, the complainant submitted that on 17.11.2018 the opposite parties credited the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- in the account of the complainant and her balance came to be Rs. 3,79,530.93 but on the same day they debited the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- without the consent and information to the complainant. To consider this plea we understand  that there is a system of the bank that when any customer deposits a cheque which is to be lodged in clearing, in her/his account then bank credited the same in his/her account but in case of return of cheque the bank debits the amount of cheque in his/her account and by doing so the bank is not playing any unfair trade practice with the complainant.

13. Further, in the return memo dated 17.11.2018 Ex.OP-1.2/3  two reasons mentioned for return of the cheque i.e. 01 Funds Insufficient and 50 Account Closed, so in case the complainant obtained the returned cheque from the opposite parties, even then she cannot deposit the same again because the cheque issuing party already closed their account in the ICICI Bank Limited, so also the opposite parties not liable to pay the cheque amount to the complainant. The complainant has not made the ICICI Bank Limited as an opposite party in the present complaint who can clear that the cheque was dishonoured due to the insufficient funds or due to closing of account by the cheque issuing party. 

14. In view of above mentioned fact and circumstances, as the bank/opposite parties admitted that they have lost the cheque of the complainant of Rs. 2,00,000/- so in our view bank is negligent not to properly care the very important document of the complainant and it is also deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, so the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant.

15. As a result of the above discussion, the present complaint is partly allowed. Accordingly, the opposite parties are directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant as consolidated amount of compensation for mental tension, harassment and litigation expenses. The opposite parties are also directed to deposit Rs. 4,000/- as costs in the Consumer Legal Aid Account maintained by this Forum. Both the opposite parties jointly and severally liable to comply with this order. However, the complainant is at liberty to approach the appropriate Court of Law to recover the amount of the cheque, if so advised. Compliance of the order be made within the period of 30 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. The file be consigned to the records after its due compliance. 

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM:

  1st Day of October 2019

 

 

            (Kuljit Singh)

            President

              

(Tejinder Singh Bhangu)

Member