Haryana

Ambala

CC/373/2019

Amar Nath - Complainant(s)

Versus

Corporation Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Abhishek Kathuria

23 Jan 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

Complaint case no.	:	373 of 2019
Date of Institution	:	11.11.2019
Date of decision	:	23.01.2023

 

Amar Nath s/o Shri Bharat Ram, R/o H.No.941, Housing Board Colony, Baldev Nagar, Ambala City.

          ……. Complainant.

                                                Versus

Union Bank of India, Baba Thakurdwara, Near Polytechnic Chowk Opposite Sector-07, Urban Estate Ambala City, through its Branch Manager earlier known as Corporation Bank.                                               

 ….…. Opposite Party

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                             Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

          Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.           

 

Present:       Shri Abhishek Kathuria, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.

                              Shri Pardeep Bansal, Advocate, counsel for the OP.

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

1.                Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’) praying for issuance of following directions to it:-

(i) To pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- on account of compensation for causing deficiency in services and unfair trade-practice, harassment, mental torture, agony and damages to the complainant by the OP ,

(ii) To grant interest @ 18% p.a. on the amount of compensation from 25.03.2019 when the Central Information Commission, New Delhi held the OP -bank responsible for the in-convenience caused to the complainant, till the date of entire payment;

(iii) To accept the complaint with costs to the tune of Rs. 11,000/-.

Or

Grant any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission may deems fit.

 

2.             Brief facts of the case are that the complainant was having his Saving Account No.520101244123224 maintained in the OP Bank. The complainant was issued a Cheque bearing No.023782 dated 12.01.2017 for Rs.62,100/- drawn on Oriental Bank of Commerce, Branch SCO-63 HUDA, Sector-08, Panchkula-134 109 by the Authorized Signatory for Housing Board Haryana out of their Account No.51631091000019. He presented the aforesaid cheque in his account number in the branch of the OP for encashment; but the said cheque was dishonored by the Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ambala Cantt Branch with the remarks "Present with document" and the same was informed to the complainant by the OP vide Memo of the Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ambala Cantt dated 22.02.2017. Accordingly the complainant contacted the concerned official of Housing Board Haryana and informed about the objections raised by the bank in not clearing the cheque; but on the inducement of the official concerned the cheque was got represented in OBC Bank No.160022026 for encashment, as the concerned official of the Housing Board Haryana disclosed to the complainant that no any other document is required alongwith the cheque; but the same was again returned with the Observation "Image not clear, present again with document". The complainant then sought information under Section 6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 from the OP and requested to disclose what is the meaning of "present with document" and "Image not clear, present again with document" and who will remove this objection; but the information was not supplied. Consequently first appeal dated 06.06.2017 was filed; but despite that the complete information was not supplied. Consequently, the second appeal dated 12.08.2017 was filed before the Hon'ble Commission, CPIO i.e. Central Public Information Officer vide Letter dated 11.05.2017 gave a point wise reply to the complainant and the FAA vide his order dated 12.07.2017 agreed with the views taken by the CPIO and also stated that information on point nos. (iv) to (vi) has not been provided as the same is not available with them. Shri Ved Prakash Sharma CPIO & AGM, Corporation Bank, Panchkula attended the hearing through video conferencing. The complainant submitted that incomplete and irrelevant information was furnished by the OP  and he stated that his cheque was returned after three months from the date of deposit and the bank did not provide any reason for the same. The OP submitted that the complainant's cheque was rejected twice by Oriental Bank of Commerce with the remarks that image is not clear and after that unclear cheque was mistakenly sent to the wrong branch and the OP has tendered apology for their mistakes. Ultimately, the Hon'ble Central Information Commission, Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka, New Delhi- 110 067 observed in the second appeal that "there was some fault on the part of the bank; but that was the human error. The cheque was reproduced 2nd time and the cheque had gone somewhere else. The bank is advised to be more cautious and should apologize to the customer, who has been put to hardship. With these observations the bank authorities will issue a letter to him and take recourse of the same." On 02.04.2019, the OP issued a letter to the complainant to the effect that the above mentioned cheque was presented two times; but the OBC had not cleared the same and due to human error the cheque had gone somewhere else and became stale and the OP  apologized for inconvenience caused to the complainant. Due to the abovesaid malafide and disrespectful act and conduct of the OP, the complainant has got his saving Account No.520101244123224, transferred in other branch and the complainant has suffered a huge financial loss, mental tension, harassment and agony for no fault on his part; as the complainant used to go to the OP ; where he was kept waiting for hours-together to tell the branch Manager about his inconvenience and he used to send him back by making false excuses. Since the complainant was in dire need of money and in order to fulfill his emergent needs, he had to arrange the money from here and there with great difficulties. Under these compelling circumstances he filed the present complaint.  
3.           Upon notice, the OP appeared and filed written version and raised preliminary objections with regard to maintainability and bad for non-joinder of necessary party etc. On merits, it has been stated that the complainant presented the cheque bearing No.023782 dated 12.01.2017 of Rs. 62,100/- drawn on Oriental Bank of Commerce Branch, S.C.O. No. 63, HUDA, Sector-8, Panchkula (now Punjab National Bank) for collection. The OP sent the said cheque for clearing to the issuing branch of cheque i.e. Oriental Bank of Commerce (now Punjab National Bank). It is not out of place to mention here that the said cheque was dishonored by OBC (now Punjab National Bank) with remarks "Present with document" vide memo dated 22.02.2017. The OP on receipt of the dishonored cheque informed the complainant about this, upon which the complainant contacted the issuing branch of the cheque and after being fully satisfied again presented the cheque in question to the bank of OP for collection. The OP  sent the cheque in question to OBC (now Punjab National Bank) for clearing, but the cheque could not be encashed by OBC (now Punjab National Bank) and the same was returned back duly dishonored with remarks " Image not clear, Present again with document". The officials of OP  again informed the complainant about the remarks given by OBC (now Punjab National Bank ) and dishonor of the cheque by them and further requested the complainant to visit the bank branch and collect the dishonored cheque, but the complainant with the reasons best known to him did not come present in the bank of OP  and after waiting the complainant, the OP  while sending the cheque to the complainant, the same was sent somewhere else mistakenly, which is a human error and it is neither intentional nor deliberate nor for causing any financial loss to the complainant on the part of OP. The complainant sought some information from the OP under Right to Information Act and the same was supplied to him. The complainant also sought information about the remarks given by Oriental Bank of Commerce (now Punjab National Bank) i.e. Present with document" AND "Image not clear, Present again with document". This information was not available with the OP as these remarks were given by the issuing branch of cheque i.e. OBC (now Punjab National Bank). The complainant was very much aware about the dishonorment of his cheque as the OP soon after receipt of the dishonored cheque informed the complainant accordingly and there is no fault of any kind on the part of OP. The OP has performed its duty rightly and there is no delay on their part. The complainant himself failed to collect the dishonored cheque from the OP bank and has filed the present complainant by leveling false and frivolous allegation against it.  Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by the OP and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with exemplary costs.
4.           Complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure CA alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 and C-10 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant. Learned counsel for the OP tendered affidavit of Jeetendra Kumar, Manager, Union Bank of India, Badha Thakur Dawara, Ambala City as Annexure OP-A alongwith Annexure D-1 to D-10 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP.
5.           We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the case file.
6.           Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that by not handing over the dishonored cheque to the complainant, the OP has committed deficiency in providing service. 
7.           On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP submitted that the cheque in question was dishonored by the OBC (now Punjab National Bank), which is a necessary party but the complainant has not impleaded it as opposite party in the arrays of the opposite parties. He further submitted that mistakenly the cheque in question was sent somewhere else and the OP had already tendered apologize to the complainant and thus, the present complaint is not maintainable.  
8.           In the present case the grievance of the complainant is against the OP Bank for not handing over the dishonored cheque to him and not against the Bank, which had dishonored the cheque in question, as such the objection raised by the learned counsel for the OP that the complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of necessary party is not tenable, hence, rejected.
9.           On merits, it is stated here that there is no dispute that complainant presented the cheque in question to the OP drawn on Oriental Bank of Commerce Branch, S.C.O. No. 63, HUDA, Sector-8, Panchkula (now Punjab National Bank) and when the said cheque was sent by the OP for clearing to the issuing branch of cheque i.e. Oriental Bank of Commerce (now Punjab National Bank), it was not honoured and sent back with remarks "Present with document" vide memo dated 22.02.2017. It is also not in dispute that the OP again sent the cheque in question to OBC (now Punjab National Bank) for clearing, but the cheque could not be encashed by OBC (now Punjab National Bank) and the same was returned back duly dishonored with remarks " Image not clear, Present again with document". However, thereafter, it is an admitted fact that the said cheque was neither returned to the complainant nor its amount was paid to the complainant. It is pertinent to mention here that since from the record i.e. order dated 25.03.2019 having been passed by the Central Information Commission, New Delhi to the effect that there was some fault on the part of the bank; but that was the human error. The cheque was reproduced 2nd time and the cheque had gone somewhere else. The bank is advised to be more cautious and should apologize to the customer, who has been put to hardship. With these observations the bank authorities will issue a letter to him and take recourse of the same." and also from the candid admission of the OP in its written version, that the cheque in question was mistakenly sent to the wrong branch and the OP has tendered apology for its mistakes, therefore, it can safely be said that such mistake amounts to negligence and deficiency in providing service, which has certainly caused a lot of mental agony and harassment to the complainant, as in the absence of transfer of cheque amount in question, he could not meet the dire need of money and in order to fulfill his emergent needs, he had to arrange the money from somewhere else. At the same time, a lot of mental agony and harassment was also suffered by the complainant because in the first instance, he was not supplied information under RTI in the matter by the OP, as a result of which, he had to move to the Central Information Commission, New Delhi, which opined that there was some fault on the part of the bank and it was only thereafter, that the bank felt apology in the matter. Under similar circumstances, wherein the bank failed to take care of the cheque of the customer, the Hon'ble National Commission, in the case of Bank of Baroda & others Versus Chitrodiya Babuji Divanji, Vol. IV (2019) CPJ 2 (NC), has held that respondent did not receive the bounced cheque nor he get the cheque amount. The petitioner failed to return the cheque to the respondent and he was deprived of his legal right to file a case under Section 138 of N.I. Act against account holder. When the cheque in question had been lost by the petitioner Bank, it is the responsibility of the Bank to compensate the loss. In this view of the matter, in our considered opinion, the complainant deserves to be compensated for the mental agony and harassment suffered by him.
10.           For the reasons recorded above, this complaint stands allowed and the OP is directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.7,000/- for causing mental agony and physical harassment, deficient in providing service and negligence and also Rs.3,000/- as cost of litigation to the complainant, within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order failing which these amounts shall entail interest @6% p.a. from the date of default till realization. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced:- 23.01.2023.

 

(Vinod Kumar Sharma)	(Ruby Sharma)	(Neena Sandhu)
Member	Member	President