Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.

                                                          Complaint No. : 122.

                                                          Instituted on     : 20.03.2018.

                                                          Decided on       : 15.07.2019.

Raj Kumar son of Sh. Sarvan Kumar resident of House No.627/28, Dairy Mohalla, Rohtak, age 29 years, Mobile no.9991861656.

                                                                    ………..Complainant.

                                                Vs.

Corporation Bank, HUDA Complex, Civil Road, Rohtak through its Manager.

……….Opposite party.

COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.

BEFORE:  SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.

                   SH. VED PAL HOODA, MEMBER.

                   DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.

Present:       Sh.Arvind Kumar Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh. Dinesh Malhotra, Advocate for opposite party.

                                      ORDER

NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:

1.                          Brief facts of the case are that complainant is having bank account no.0569001013564 with the respondent bank and used to deposit and withdraw the amount through transaction from his aforesaid account. That on 02.09.2017 he had deposited a cheque bearing no.937598 dated 01.09.2017 amounting to Rs.50000/- drawn at Indian Overseas Bank, in his aforesaid account and the same was credited in his account by the bank on 08.09.2017. That after five months of the aforesaid transaction, opposite party bank issued one SMS on 18.02.2018 mentioning therein that “Your account No.xxxxxxxx783 debited INR 50000/- on 18.02.2018 by TRF. AVL BAL is +73178.60.   That complainant contacted the opposite party and the officials of the opposite party without giving any satisfactory reply had handed over one returned memo dated 17.02.2018  cheque dated 16.02.20218, cheque no.937958 amounting to Rs.50000/-. That the particulars of returned memo were fake as return date was mentioned as 17.02.2018 whereas the cheque was deposited by the complainant in the said account on 02.09.2017, cheque date is mentioned as 16.02.2018 while the cheque date presented by the complainant was 01.09.2017. That the opposite party in an illegal manner has debited the amount of Rs.50000/- from his account. That the act of opposite party is illegal and there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Hence, this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to credit the amount of Rs.50000/- in his account and to withdraw the entry of debit of Rs.50000/-  and also to pay Rs.25000/- as compensation  and Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.

2.                          After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party. Opposite party in its reply has submitted that on the request of petitioner, a sum of Rs.50000/- was credited in his account, but till date the cheque was not encashed. It was just to oblige the petitioner. That as the cheque given by the petitioner was not encashed, therefore, his account was debited to the tune of Rs.50000/- which was earlier credited on 08.09.2017. The opposite party bank is entitled to recover the  amount of the cheque of the complainant which could not got encashed in transaction. That the amount of the said cheque was not received by the respondent bank after clearance. Therefore, the bank had the right to recover the amount of cheque for Rs.50000/- which was credited in the account of complainant.  That there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and dismissal of complaint has been sought.

3.                          Complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 and Ex.C5 and has closed his evidence on dated 19.11.2018. Ld. Counsel for OP has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, document Ex.R1 to Ex.R7 and closed his evidence on dated 04.02.2019.

4.                          We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.

5.                          After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that a Cheque dated 01.09.2017 amounting to Rs.50000/- was deposited by the complainant on 02.09.2017 with the opposite party/ bank which was credited in the account of complainant on 08.09.2017 by the bank but lateron, on 18.02.2018 it was conveyed to the complainant through SMS that the cheque was dishonored and the amount was debited from the account of complainant. But the original cheque was not returned to the complainant. Moreover, the alleged intimation was given to the complainant after more than five months, due to which, the complainant could not take action under Negotiable Instrument Act and suffered a loss of amount of cheque which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.

6.                          We have also observed the return memo Ex.C1, in which the return date is 17.02.2018 and cheque date is shown as 16.02.2018 whereas the cheque date shown in Ex.C2 is 01.09.2017 and the same was credited in the account of complainant on 08.09.2017 as shown in statement of account Ex.C3, which itself is false and fabricated. Moreover, on the alleged document Ex.C1, return reason is shown as “Instrument outdated/stale” which also proves deficiency in service on the part of opposite party as after more than 5 months, an instrument can be outdated/stale, if not kept in proper manner. Hence the cheque was dishonored due to negligence and deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. In support of his contention, ld. counsel for the complainant has placed reliance upon the RBI Guidelines and order dated 01.05.2014 of Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in Revision petition no.1434-1435 of 2014  titled as Piramal Enterprises Limited Vs. Sukhdev Mustafi etc. which is fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case. On the other hand, law cited by ld. counsel for the opposite party in 1(2018) CPJ 271(NC) titled as Nitin Vijayrao Kottawar Vs. Aslam Salam Sheikh, 2018(4)CLJ564 titled as Sri Sushanta Chandra Deb Vs. G.R.Service and others,  and 2003(1) CLT 413 titled as M/s Verma Lubricant Vs. Union Bank of India  and the same are not fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case. 

7.                          In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party to credit the amount of Rs.50000/-(Rupees fifty thousand only) in the account of complainant alongwith interest at the prevailing rate from the date of debit of alleged amount i.e.17.02.2018 till its credit and shall also pay a sum of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.

8.                         Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

15.07.2019.                                                 ................................................

                                                          Nagender Singh Kadian, President

                                                                        ………………………………..

                                                                        Ved Pal Hooda, Member.

                                                          …………………………………

                                                          Renu Chaudhary, Member.