DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA (PUNJAB)
CC No. 293 of 08-07-2010 Decided on : 21-12-2010
Pankaj Goyal aged about 28 years S/o Sh. Ashwani Goyal, R/o H. No. 665, Model Town, Phase I, Bathinda. .... Complainant Versus
Central Bank of India, Bank Bazar, Bathinda, through its Branch Manager. .... Opposite party
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM Ms. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member
For the Complainant : Sh. Narinder Singla, counsel for the complainant. For the Opposite parties : Sh. Sham Singh Jaura, counsel for the opposite party.
O R D E R
VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT
The complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (here-in-after referred to as 'Act'). The complainant received a demand draft of Rs. 6,00,000/- bearing No. 000393 dated 26-5-2010 prepared by Central Bank of India, New Delhi, payable at Bathinda (at par at all local branches) and the complainant in order to get the aforesaid demand draft encashed, presented the same in his account with IDBI Bank at New Delhi and the banker of the complainant further sent the aforesaid demand draft to Central Bank of India, New Delhi, for clearance and the said bank sent the draft to Central Bank of India, Bathinda. The said demand draft was duly received by the opposite party at Bathinda for payment to the complainant but the opposite party without any sufficient reason dishonoured the said demand draft and returned the same back to the complainant alongwith its returning memo dated 4-6-2010 with the remarks 'Advice not received' and due to the said reason, the banker of the complainant also deducted a sum of Rs. 716/- from the account of the complainant. The complainant again approached the opposite party and inquired about the reason for the dishonour of the above said demand draft but the complainant could not get satisfactory reply from the opposite party. Thereafter, the complainant presented the aforesaid demand draft for the second time with Central Bank of India, Bathinda, and the same was cleared. As such, there was no hitch in the clearance of the aforesaid demand draft for the first time also but the opposite party dishonoured and returned the same back to the complainant without any sufficient reason. Hence, the complainant has filed this complaint for issuing directions to the opposite party to refund Rs. 716/- charges borne by the complainant due to dishonour of the demand draft; pay interest @ 12% P.A. on the amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- w.e.f. the date of presentation till realisation and compensation and cost. The opposite party filed written statement and took legal objection that complainant is not consumer of the opposite party as he has not purchased the draft from the opposite party and he did not pay any amount to the opposite party for any service and this Forum has got no territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint because the draft was presented for payment at New Delhi. The opposite party has pleaded in its written statement that complainant had purchased a demand draft for Rs. 6,00,000/- from the opposite party at New Delhi, IIMC Branch of the Bank and the same was payable at Bathinda. The complainant who is beneficiary of the draft did not present the same at Bathinda and rather presented the same to his banker IDBI Bank at New Delhi, though the branch of the IDBI Bank is situated at Bathinda also. The draft was never presented to Central Bank of India, New Delhi, for clearance and the Central Bank of India, New Delhi never sent the same to Central Bank of India, Bathinda. The complainant has filed a false affidavit in the complaint. The opposite party has received the said draft on 4.6.2010 for payment through clearing through IDBI Bank, Bathinda, but the advice of the draft was not received by the paying branch and the payment could not be paid without advice, as per bank rules and also in the interest of the customers of the bank because the amount of the draft was huge amount and the draft had been presented in New Delhi instead of Bathinda which was the city where the draft is payable, so the doubtful circumstances had been created by the complainant regarding the draft. So keeping high standards of vigilance, the opposite party did not make the payment of the draft in the absence of the advice. A sum of Rs. 716/- was the collection charges which every bank charges for the collection of outstation cheques and this amount was not charged as a penalty for dishonour of the draft, by the bank of the complainant. The complainant was requested to present the draft again at Bathinda for payment on the very next day but the complainant again presented the same only on 15-06-2010 and the same was paid there and then. The demand draft was paid when presented second time. The demand draft was presented in the saving account and no interest accrues in the saving account for short period. Parties have led evidence in support of their pleadings. Arguments heard and written submissions submitted by the parties perused. The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that complainant had purchased the demand draft for Rs. 6,00,000/- IIMC Branch of the opposite party at New Delhi, payable at Bathinda. (at par at all local branches). The complainant presented the demand draft in his account with IDBI Bank at New Delhi and his banker sent the aforesaid demand draft to Central Bank of India, New Delhi, for clearance and Central Bank of India, New Delhi, sent the same to Central Bank of India, Bathinda, as the same was payable at Bathinda. The opposite party dishonoured the said demand draft and returned the same alongwith its returning memo dated 4-6-2010 with remarks “Advice not received” Ex. C-3 and deducted a sum of Rs. 716/- from the account of the complainant. When the complainant presented the aforesaid demand draft second time with Central Bank of India, Bathinda, the same was cleared. The complainant has alleged that the opposite party has dishonoured the demand draft when it was presented first time and returned him back without assigning any sufficient reason. The learned counsel for the opposite party submitted that complainant had purchased demand draft from IIMC Branch of the Bank at New Delhi. The complainant did not present the same at Bathinda rather he presented the same to his banker IDBI Bank at New Delhi though the branch of IDBI Bank situated at Bathinda also. The said demand draft was never presented to Central Bank of India, New Delhi, for clearance and the Central Bank of India, New Delhi, never sent the same to Central Bank of India, Bathinda. The opposite party received the draft on 4.6.2010 for payment through clearing through IDBI Bank, Bathinda, but the advice of the draft was not received by the paying branch the payment could not be paid without advice as per bank rules and also in the interest of the customers of the bank, because the amount of the draft was huge amount, and the draft has been presented in New Delhi instead of Bathinda which was the city where the draft is payable, so in such doubtful circumstances, the demand draft was not cleared keeping high standards of vigilance, the opposite party did not make the payment in the absence of advice. It has deducted a sum of Rs. 716/- as collection charges which every bank charges for the collection of outstation drafts and this amount was not charged as penalty for dishonour of the draft. When the complainant presented the demand draft on 15-6-2010 the same was paid there and then. The opposite party has taken legal objections that complainant is not consumer and this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try this complaint. The complainant has purchased the draft from the Delhi branch of opposite party, so he is consumer of the opposite party. As far as territorial jurisdiction of this Forum is concerned, this Forum has got the territorial jurisdiction as the complainant had to get the payment at Bathinda branch of the bank. Hence, the objections raised by the opposite party are not tenable. The complainant has not impleaded Central Bank of India, New Delhi, as party to the complaint from where he purchased the demand draft. Hence, this complaint is bad for the non-joinder of necessary parties. The opposite party had not paid the amount of draft as advice of the draft was not received by the paying branch. In the of absence advice, the payment could be paid as per Bank rules as the amount in question was a huge one. When the complainant presented the draft for the second time, it has been cleared at the same time as the advice had been received by the payee bank from the drawee bank. Moreover, deduction of Rs. 716/- was made on account of outstation collection charges and not as penalty. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. In view of what has been discussed above, this complaint fails and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
Pronounced 21-12-2010 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni) President (Dr. Phulinder Preet) Member
(Amarjeet Paul) Member
|
