Delhi

North East

CC/333/2016

OM PAL SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

02 Mar 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No.333/16

 

 

 

In the matter of:

 

		Shri  Ompal Singh R/o 4/2559, Gali No.10, Bihari Colony Shahdara, Delhi-110032		Complainant
		Versus
		Central Bank of India Shyam Lal College, Shahdara, Delhi-110032		Opposite Party
			DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                           DATE OF ORDER:		06.12.16 21.11.22 02.03.23

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

ORDER

       Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986.

 Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that the Complainant had issued two cheques bearing no. 000102 of Rs. 13,995/- dated 21.12.15 to Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and another cheque bearing no. 000101 of Rs. 20,000/- dated 19.12.15 to Life Insurance Corporation of India from his Central Bank account having A/c No. 3492077005. On 01.06.16 and 07.01.16 Complainant came to know the bank had returned his cheques without transferring the amount stating the reason that “Drawers Sig to Operate A/C not Rece” and this information regarding return of cheques was not given to Complainant. The Complainant submitted that due to this act of bank his insurance policy of his vehicle for the period 29.12.15 to 28.12.16 got cancelled by insurance company. The Complainant stated that the insurance policy of his vehicle was not elapsed from 29.12.12 to 28.12.16. The Complainant stated that when he enquired Opposite Party bank then Opposite Party stated that Complainant had not submitted cheques in bank for processing. The insurance company does not renewed the policy of his vehicle and he had to pay Rs. 44,500/- from his pocket for repairing the damages. Complainant has prayed for Rs. 44,500/- as car repairing expenses and Rs. 19,00,000/- for mental harassment. He has also prayed for Rs. 25,000/- as litigation expenses.

Case of the Opposite Party

2. The Opposite Party contested the case and filed written statement. It is stated by the Opposite Party that on 27.09.15 the Complainant approached the Opposite Party bank for grant and sanction of cash credit limit of Rs. 20,000/- and term loan of Rs. 30,000/- under Pradhan Mantri Mudra Yojna vide loan application dated 27.09.15 and considering the request of the Complainant the Opposite Party bank on 01.10.15 granted and sanctioned the above said credit facilities and the Complainant in order to secure the repayment of the above said credit facilities executed loan/security document dated 01.10.15 in favour of the Opposite Party bank thereby assuring the repayment of the above credit facilities along with interest. However, few loan documents were not signed by the Complainant therefore, the Opposite Party bank could not feed the signature of the account holder/Complainant and the same was signed by the Complainant only on 31.12.15 and accordingly the Opposite Party bank linked the signature card of the Complainant in his above said CC Loan account on 31.12.15.
3. It is submitted that the cash credit limit of Rs. 20,000/- has been duly availed by the Complainant and despite several request the Complainant failed to maintained the financial discipline and said account became SMA on 30.05.16 and 30.06.16 and finally accordingly the said cash credit limit account has been classified as NPA on 28.12.16 and as on 24.04.17 as sum of Rs. 4,060/- is recoverable by the Opposite Party bank from the Complainant being his legal liability.
4. It is submitted that the signature of Complainant could not be updated in his above said cash credit account by the Opposite Party bank due to the reason mentioned above and the same was updated on 31.12.15 when the Complainant completed/executed all the necessary loan documents in respect of above said CC loan facility.
5. It is further submitted that accordingly the Complainant has also withdrawn cash of Rs. 34,000/- on 31.12.15 from his above said cash credit limit account, which is reflecting the statement of account attached and may have paid the premium of LIC policy and insurance policy of his vehicle in question. Therefore, it is proved that he has not suffered any loss on account of dishonoured cheques in question.
6. It is further submitted that the present complaint filed by the Complainant is bad for non-joinder/misjoinder of necessary party as the Complainant has not made the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. who is also necessary part in the present complaint as such the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.
7. The Complainant has intentionally and deliberately concealed relevant and material facts by not disclosing that the Complainant failed to complete the entire formalities regarding updation of his signature card and he completed the formalities only on 31.12.15 and he has also withdrawn cash of Rs. 34,000/- from this above said cash credit loan account on 31.12.15 and the Complainant has mischievously filled the present complaint with ulterior motives to harass and damage the hard earned reputation of the Opposite Party which is known to be providing best of the services to their customer. The Opposite Party reserves the right to sue the Complainant on this count of wrong allegations/defamation.

Rejoinder to the Written Statement of Opposite Party

8. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Party and has reiterated the assertion made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

9. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Party

10. In order to prove its case Opposite Party has filed affidavit of Shri Sunil Kumar, Chief Manager, Presently posted Central Bank of India, Shahdara Branch, Delhi-110032 wherein the averments made in the written statement of Opposite Party have been supported.

Arguments & Conclusion

11. We have heard the Complainant and Ld. Counsel for the Opposite Party. We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by Parties. The case of the Complainant is that he is maintaining the account with the Opposite Party bank and issued 2 cheques for renewing his policies with the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Life Insurance Corporation of India respectively. Complainant comes to know that Opposite Party bank has returned his cheques without transferring the amount stating the reason that “Drawers Sig to Operate A/C not Rece” and this information regarding return of cheques was not given to Complainant. It is further submitted by Complainant that due to this act of bank his insurance policy of his vehicle for the period 29.12.15 to 28.12.16 cancelled by insurance company. Because of non-renewal of insurance policy for Complainant’s car he had to pay Rs. 44,500/- from his pocket for repairing the damages.
12. The Case of the Opposite Party is that the Complainant approached the Opposite Party bank for grant and sanction of cash credit limit of Rs. 20,000/- and term loan of Rs. 30,000/- under Pradhan Mantri Mudra Yojna. On 27.09.15 considering the request of the Complainant the Opposite Party bank had granted and sanctioned credit facilities on 01.10.15.  it is further submitted by the Opposite Party that few loan documents were not signed by the Complainant therefore, the Opposite Party bank could not feed the signature of the account holder/Complainant and the same was signed by the Complainant only on 31.12.15 and accordingly the Opposite Party bank linked the signature card of the Complainant in above said cash credit limit loan account on 31.12.15 and Complainant withdraw cash of Rs. 34,000/- on 31.12.15 from the above said cash credit limit account and may have paid premium of LIC policy and insurance policy of his vehicle in question. Therefore, it is proved that he has not suffered any loss on account of dishonour cheque in question.
13. The insurance policy of the vehicle and the Complainant was cancelled on 31.12.15 and he repaired his car and paid the bill on 25.03.16. So, there was enough time with the Complainant to renew his policy of the car.
14. It is admitted by the Opposite Party that two cheques issued by the Complainant was dishonoured on account of his signature to operate account was not received. It is fact that while opening the account Opposite Party bank must have taken signature of the Complainant on record. Dishonouring the cheque by Opposite Party on account of Complainant’s signature was not received for operating the account is not maintainable. There is deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party.
15. In view of the above discussion, the complaint is allowed. Opposite Party is directed to pay Rs. 25,000/- on account of deficiency of service and mental harassment as well as litigation charges to the Complainant along with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of this order till recovery.
16. Order announced on 02.03.23.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room. 

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President