Punjab

Sangrur

CC/314/2016

M/s Kitty Garments - Complainant(s)

Versus

Chief Manager - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Yogesh Gupta

10 Oct 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.  314

                                                Instituted on:    01.03.2016

                                                Decided on:       10.10.2016

 

M/s. Kitty Garments, through its partner Suresh Jain son of Late Shri Ruldu Ram Jain, R/o Thandi Sarak, Malerkotla, District Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

State Bank of India through its Chief Manager, Branch Malerkotla, District Sangrur.

                                                        ..Opposite party

 

For the complainant  :       Shri Yogesh Gupta, Adv.

For OP                     :       Shri Satpal Sharma, Adv.

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             M/s. Kitty Garments through its partner Suresh Jain, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite party (referred to as OP in short) on the ground that the complainant is having an account bearing number 65153436266 with the OP and got issued a cheque book in its favour. The case of the complainant is that original cheque number 743892 is in possession of the complainant, but it has come to the notice of the complainant that an amount of Rs.2,90,000/- was debited in the account of the complainant on 29.10.2015.  When the complainant approached the OP in this respect and showed the cheque, no satisfactory reply was given. Further case of the complainant is that the officials of the OP are totally negligent because they have debited the amount on the basis of forged cheque and the paid the amount without taking into possession of the PAN number of Satnam Singh, as no payment of more than Rs.50,000/- can be made without the PAN number .  It is further averred that though the complainant requested the OP to credit the amount of Rs.2,90,000/- in his account, but all in vain. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complainant has prayed that the OP be directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.2,90,000/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from 29.10.2015 till realisation and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by the OP, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious in nature and should be dismissed. Further it is stated that the present complaint is outside the scope and ambit of the consumer dispute as to prove these allegations lengthy evidence is required and it is not a consumer dispute and it is contended that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands.  On merits, it is admitted that the complainant is having an account with the OP and issuance of cheque book is also admitted. It is stated further that out of the cheque book, the authorised person of the complainant firm issued a cheque number 743892 for Rs.2,90,000/- in favour of Satnam Singh. On 29.10.2015, Satnam Singh presented the cheque number 743892 for Rs.2,90,000/- in the bank of the Op and after verifying the signatures on the cheque as per the norms, the amount was made. It is further stated that after receipt of presentation from the complainant, the complainant was intimated that the said Satnam Singh presented the cheque number 743892 for Rs.2,90,000/- and as such the payment was made.  It is stated that the complainant is not entitled to get any relief whatsoever from this Forum and complaint should be dismissed with special costs.

 

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 copy of legal notice, Ex.C-2 postal receipt, Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-4 copies of letters, Ex.C-5 copy of cheque, Ex.C-6 copy of letter, Ex.C-7 copy of cheque, Ex.C-8 copy of reminder, Ex.C-9 copy of letter, Ex.C-10 copy of cheque, Ex.C-11 copy of courier receipt, Ex.C-12 to Ex.C-16 copies of letters and receipts and Ex.C-17 affidavit,  Ex.C-18 copy of cheque, Ex.C-19 to Ex.C-22 copies of cheques and Ex.C-23 copy of letter and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Op has produced  Ex.OP-1 affidavit, Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP-5 copies of photographs, Ex.OP-6 pen drive and closed evidence.

 
4              We have carefully perused the complaint, written version of the opposite parties, evidence of the parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

5.             After hearing the arguments and on the perusal of the documents placed on record, we find that the main point of controversy in the present complaint is whether the Op has made the payment on the original cheque or on the duplicate cheque.

 

6.             As the facts of the case demanded that the Forum could not make a decision only on physically examining the cheque in the custody of the complainant as well as the cheque on which the OP has made the payment. So, both the parties were directed to bring the cheques in question for the perusal of the Forum and on 4.10.2016 the said cheques were examined by the Forum.

 

7.             On physical verification of the cheque of the OP, we find that the colour of the cheque of the OP is light green whereas the colour of the cheque of the complainant is dark green.  While looking at the cheque in the custody of the complainant, we have also seen other mutilated cheques in the used cheque book of the complainant and we find that the unused cheque, the photocopy of which is Ex.C-5 fully resembles with the cheque in the cheque book of the complainant.  So, the cheque, the photocopy of which is Ex.C-5 is a part of the cheque book issued to the complainant by the Op and the cheque on which the OP has made the payment of Rs.2,90,000/- does not resemble the cheque in the custody of the complainant. The size of the cheque on which the payment has been made also does not match with the size of the cheque in possession of the complainant. Above all the wording on the cheque on which the payment has been made differs with the cheque in possession of the complainant. As per the document Ex.C-18 which is a copy of the cheque on which the payment of Rs.2,90,000/- has been made, it has been mentioned that “cash withdrawal restricted to self upto Rs.2,00,000/- at non bank branches”. Moreover, the bearer has been deleted in the cheque and the OP has made the payment of order cheque in cash without any witness or identity proof of the person who had presented the cheque, all this clearly shows that the OP has taken no precaution while passing the cheque in question.

 

8.             We have also gone through the letter dated 2.3.2016 Ex.C-23, in which the OP has requested the Senior Superintendent of Police, Sangrur in which at para number 4 of the OP has submitted that “we verified that some and other prima-facie investigation, it seems that culprit i.e. Satnam Singh committed fraud with the bank to embezzle the account holder’s money as well as public money from its beginning. His malafide intention is very much clear from the beginning by preparing forged cheque”.  So, it is clear from the document Ex.C-23 that the OP had already admitted in the application written to the police that wrong payment of Rs.2,90,000/- has been made by the bank.  But, later on in reply to the version of the complainant, the Op had changed the version and has submitted that there is no negligence of the OP.  All this shows the conduct of the OP and the OP which is  a Government of India undertaking has misled the Forum instead of coming to the Forum with clean hands.

 

9.             On 15.6.2016, the complainant moved an application for the production of cheque with the Op along with other documents and on 28.7.2016 the documents were shown by the Op and the counsel for the complainant has stated that there is difference of colour between the disputed cheque and other cheques.  The learned counsel for the OP ha stated that they had given application to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Sangrur for lodging of FIR and inquiry is pending and departmental inquiry is also pending. So, by this, the authenticity of the document Ex.C-23 was admitted by the Op which means that the OP had made wrong payment and has put the complainant to a loss of Rs.2,90,000/-.

 

10.           So, keeping in view of the facts mentioned above, we find that the Op is deficient and negligent in service and has not taken due precaution in safeguarding the interests of the complainant and above all has misled the Forum in reply to the version of the complainant though as per the document Ex.C-23, the OP was fully aware that the account of the complainant has been debited wrongly which requesting the police for the lodgement of FIR against Satnam Singh to whom the payment has been made.

 

 

11.           In the light of above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the Op to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.2,90,000/- along with 9% interest from the date of debit of the duplicate cheque to the account of the complainant till realisation in full. We further order the Op to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.50,000/- on account of mental tension, agony and harassment, as the Op has failed to protect the public money. We further direct the OP to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.11,000/- on account of litigation expenses.

 

12.           This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                October 10, 2016.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                              (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                Member

 

 

 

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member