BEFORE THE DISTR7ICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No. 633 of 2014

Date of Institution: 2.12.2014

Date of Decision: 27.01.2016

Boota Singh son of Jagir Singh R/o Village Banian P.O. Khadoor Sahib District Tarn Taran

Complainant

Versus

1. Employee Provident Fund Organization Branch Office, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, 9 Basant Avenue, Amritsar through its Regional Commissioner/A.P.F.C
2. Employee Provident Fund Organization Head Office, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, 14 , Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110066
3. State Bank of India, Branch Putlighar, Amritsar through its Branch Manager/Manager
4. Punjab National Bank, Branch  Goindwal Sahib, District Tarn Taran ,through its Branch Manager/Manager     

Opposite Parties

Complaint under section 11 and 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Present:  For the Complainant               :  Sh. Amit Monga,Advocate

               For the Opposite Party No.1& 2: Sh. Sanjay Aggarwal Advocate

              For the Opposite Party No.3     : Sh. P.K.Mody,Advocate

               For Opposite party No.4       : Sh. Sumesh Sharma,Advocate

Quorum:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President

Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member

Sh. Anoop Sharma, Member

Order dictated by:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President.

1. Present complaint has been filed by Boota Singh under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he was working in the establishment M/s. Goindwal Co-Op.Spinning Mills Ltd., Sri Goindwal Sahib and the employer of the complainant used to deduct mandatory deduction of EPF @ 12%  upon the basic pay and equal share of contribution  was being deposited by the employer in the Provident  Fund of the complainant bearing P.F.Account No. PB/15620/1374 . After retirement, complainant approached opposite parties No.1 & 2 for payment of Provident fund dues and opposite party No.1 settled the dues of the complainant amounting to Rs. 57,044/- in April 2013. Opposite party No.1 assured the complainant that he will get payment through account payee cheque very soon. But the complainant had not  received any payment from the opposite parties and after making enquiry complainant was informed that cheque No. 949677  of Rs. 57,044/- has been issued by opposite party No.1  to Punjab National Bank, Branch Goindwal Sahib, District Tarn Taran i.e. directly to the account of the complainant. But the complainant did not receive the amount nor his banker had received any payment from opposite parties No.1 & 2. The complainant again approached  opposite party No.1 and enquired about the status of the payment  and  at that time officials of opposite party No.1 told the complainant that the  payment has been debited from the bank account of opposite parties and as such the complainant should enquire from his bank. Complainant then approached his banker i.e. Punjab National Bank  and they replied that they had not received the aforesaid payment  and in this regard  banker of the complainant issued certificate to the complainant. Complainant again visited opposite party No.1 and asked for the payment, but to no avail. Ultimately in the month of Jan.2014 complainant requested opposite party No.1 to release his hard earned money, but opposite party No.1 did not release the amount to the complainant.  Alleging the same to be deficiency in service complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite parties to release the provident fund amount of Rs. 57,044/- alongwith interest  @ 18% P.A. Compensation of Rs. 30,000/- alongwith litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, opposite parties No.1 & 2 appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that  complaint is barred as opposite party No.1 issued cheque bearing No. 949677 dated 5.12.2008 of Rs. 57,044/- and  the same was forwarded  by the complainant bank i.e. Punjab National Bank, Goindwal Sahib, Tarn Taran in favour of the complainant for crediting his saving account bearing No. 1932000100112846 and the same was debited from opposite party No.1 account  maintained in State Bank of India, Putlighar Branch,Amritsar  and the complainant is now raising the dispute after more than six and half years.  It was denied that opposite party No.1 assured the complainant in the month of April 2013 that he will get the payment through account payee cheque. It was submitted that if the amount was not credited to the account of the complainant , then complainant should have approached his own bank and if there is a negligence of his bank for not crediting the amount to complainant’s account .  While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. Opposite party No.3 in its written version has submitted that cheque in question for Rs. 57,044/- has issued by opposite parties No.1 & 2  in favour of complainant  has since been encashed by making debit entry to the account of opposite parties No.1 & 2 thereby giving credit to the account of presenting bankers i.e. opposite party No.3 through mode of clearing at the relevant time i.e. on 3.1.2009 for giving credit to the account holder of the said presenting bank. It was submitted that  complainant after receiving the cheque from opposite party No.2 presented for collection to its bankers in the month of December 2008 which has since been encashed by giving credit to the account of bankers of the complainant for onward payment to the person , however the debit entry of the aforesaid credit amount was made in the account of opposite party No. 1 on 3.1.2009 through clearing on presentation by the collecting bankers. There had not been any transaction of the alleged amount in the month of April 2013  or in the year 2013 in the account of opposite parties No.1 & 2 except the transaction of encashment of the alleged amount in the year 2009 in the month of January. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
4. Opposite party No.4 in its written version has submitted that replying opposite party received a letter/reference No. 817341/ACC.Grp/03/PN/15620 /1374 dated 11.12.2008 alongwith cheque bearing No. 949677 dated 5.12.2008 for Rs. 57,044/- from opposite party No.1 for the purpose of credit the same to saving bank account No. 11284 in the name of Boota  Singh son of Jagir Singh. It was submitted that complainant has saving bank account bearing No. 1932000100112846 with the replying opposite party. The mentioning of incomplete saving bank account number of the complainant by opposite party No.1 caused confusion in the mind of replying opposite party due to which inadvertently the amount of said cheque  was credited to another saving bank account bearing No. 1932000100112855 in the name of one  Amandeep Kaur.  The replying opposite party issued certificate dated 28.11.2013  to the  complainant that cheque bearing No. 949677 dated 5.12.2008 for Rs. 57,044/- has not been credited to the saving bank account bearing No. 1932000100112846. It was denied that complainant approached the replying opposite party and it was replied to him that replying opposite party has not received the payment of cheque bearing No. 949677 dated 5.12.2008 for Rs. 57,044/-. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
5. Complainant tendered into evidence  his affidavit Ex.C-1 alongwith documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-6.
6. Opposite prties No.1 & 2 tendered affidavit of Sh. Bodh Raj,SSSA Ex.OP1,2/1.
7. Opposite party No.3 tendered affidavit of Sh.S.K.Kundra, Branch Manager Ex.OP3/1.
8. Opposite party No.4 tendered affidavit of Sh.Inderjit ,Sr.Manager Ex.OP4/1, copy of letter dated 11.12.2008 Ex.OP4/2,  copies of account statements Ex.OP4/3 to Ex.OP4/6.
9.  We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties, arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the  parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by all the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for the parties.
10. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by all the parties, it is clear that complainant was working in the establishment M/s. Goindwal Co-Op.Spinning Mills Ltd., Sri Goindwal Sahib District Tarn Taran and the employer of the complainant used to deduct EPF @ 12% of the basic pay and equal share of contribution  was being deposited by the employer in the Provident  Fund of the complainant bearing P.F.Account No. PB/15620/1374 . After retirement, complainant approached opposite parties No.1 & 2 for payment of Provident fund dues and opposite party No.1 settled the dues of the complainant amounting to Rs. 57,044/- in April 2013. Opposite party No.1 vide cheque No. 949677 sent this amount of Rs. 57,044/- to Punjab National Bank, Branch Goindwal Sahib, District Tarn Taran i.e. directly to the account of the complainant. But the complainant did not receive the amount nor his banker had received any payment from opposite parties No.1 & 2. The complainant approached Punjab National Bank, opposite party No.4 , who replied that they had not received the aforesaid payment and they issued certificate dated 28.11.2013 Ex.C-3 to the complainant in this regard . The complainant again approached opposite party No.1 , who replied that they had already sent the payment in the bank account of the complainant. Thereafter complainant approached  banker of opposite parties No.1 & 2 i.e. Opposite party No.3 State Bank of India through opposite party No.1, who also did not give proper reply to the complainant. As per the record of opposite parties No.1 & 2, they had sent the aforesaid cheque to Punjab National Bank, Goindwal Sahib, District Tarn  Taran i.e. opposite party No.4, in favour of Boota  Singh, complainant for credit in his saving bank account on 5.12.2008 and as per bank statement, the cheque amount was debited on 3.1.2009. But the complainant had not received this amount. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that the opposite party No.4 has not credited this amount to the account of the complainant  and has mis-appropriated the cheque amount and all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.4.
11. Whereas case of opposite parties No.1 & 2 is that the cheque in question bearing No. 949677 dated 5.12.2008 of Rs. 57,044/- with regard to the provident fund amount of the complainant was forwarded to the complainant bank i.e. Punjab National Bank, opposite party No.4 , in favour of the complainant for crediting this amount in his saving bank account bearing No.1932000100112846 and the same was debited to the account of opposite party No.1 being maintained in State Bank of India i.e. opposite party No.3 on 3.1.2009. But the complainant  is raising this dispute that he has not received the amount. So this cheque amount might have been mis-appropriated at the stage of opposite parties No.3 or 4, whereas opposite parties No.1 & 2 have not committed any deficiency of service qua the complainant.
12. Similarly case of opposite party No.3 is that cheque in question for Rs. 57,044/- has issued by opposite parties No.1 & 2  in favour of complainant  has since been encashed by making debit entry to the account of opposite parties No.1 & 2 thereby giving credit to the account of presenting bankers i.e. opposite party No.3 through mode of clearing at the relevant time i.e. on 3.1.2009 for giving credit to the account holder i.e. complainant vide presenting bank i.e. Punjab National Bank, opposite party No.4. So this cheque amount might have been mis-appropriated at the stage of opposite party No.4. Ld.counsel for opposite party No.3 submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.3 qua the complainant.
13. Whereas case of opposite party No.4 is that opposite party No.4 received a letter/reference No.817341/ACC.Grp/03/PN/15620/1374 dated 11.12.2008 alongwith cheque bearing No. 949677 dated 5.12.2008 for Rs. 57,044/- from opposite party No.1 for the purpose of crediting the said cheque to the saving bank account No. 11284 in the name of Boota Singh son of Jagir Singh. The complainant has saving bank account bearing No. 1932000100112846 with opposite party No.4 . The mentioning of incomplete saving bank account number of the complainant by opposite party No.1 caused confusion in the mind of opposite party No.4 due to which inadvertently amount of said cheque was credited to another saving bank account bearing No. 1932000100112855 in the name of one  Amandeep Kaur. Opposite party No.1  admitted that they issued certificate dated 28.11.2013 Ex.C-3 to the complainant that cheque in question has not been credited to the saving bank account of the complainant and they replied to the complainant that opposite party No.4 has not received the payment of cheque in question. Under these circumstances, opposite party No.4 has not committed any deficiency of service qua the complainant.
14. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that complainant  had EPF account with opposite party No.1 bearing account No.PB/15620/1374 . After retirement , the complainant approached opposite party No.1 to settle the dues of his provident fund and opposite party No.1 settled the dues of the complainant towards Employee Provident Fund amounting to Rs. 57,044/-. Resultantly opposite parties No.1 & 2 issued cheque bearing No. 949677 dated 5.12.2008 directly to Punjab National Bank, Goindwal Sahib, District Tarn Taran for crediting the same to the saving bank account of the complainant. The said amount was debited in the account of opposite party No.1 with opposite party No.3 State Bank of India, Putlighar Branch,Amritsar  on 3.1.2009. This fact has also been admitted by opposite party No.3 that cheque in question was issued by opposite parties No.1 & 2 for Rs. 57,044/- which was got encashed by opposite party No.4 bank by making debit entry to their account thereby giving credit to the account of presenting bankers through mode of clearing on the relevant time i.e. 3.1.2009 for giving credit to the account holder of the said presenting banker. This fact has also been admitted by opposite party No.4  in para 3 of their written version that opposite party No.4  received  letter dated 11.12.2008 Ex.OP4/2 from opposite party No.1 alongwith cheque bearing No. 949677 dated 5.12.2008 for Rs. 57,044/- for the purpose of crediting the said cheque amount to the saving bank account No. 11284 in the name of Boota Singh son of Jagir  Singh i.e. complainant. However, the complainant has saving bank account bearing No. 1932000100112846 with opposite party No.4. Opposite party No.4 instead of getting clarification from opposite party No.1 fully knowing that this cheque amount was to be credited to the saving bank account of Boota  Singh son of Jagir Singh, intentionally credited this cheque amount to the saving bank account No. 1932000100112855 in the name of one Amandeep Kaur and when the complainant approached opposite party No.4, opposite party No.4 instead of rectifying the mistake committed by opposite party No.4, issued certificate dated 28.11.2013 Ex.C-3 to the complainant that the cheque bearing No. 949677 dated 5.12.2008 for Rs. 57,044/- has not been credited to the saving bank account of the complainant i.e. saving bank account No. 1932000100112846. However, opposite party No.4 got the amount of this cheque through clearing and debited this amount to the account of opposite party No.1 in opposite party No.3 bank. It was the duty of opposite party No.4 to get it clarified from opposite party No.1 that account number of Boota Singh son of Jagir  Singh written in the letter dated 11.10.2008 Ex.OP4/2 is incomplete and the same should be got clarified and complete saving bank account number of the complainant should have been obtained from opposite party No.1. Rather the complainant has approached opposite party No.4 so many times in this regard, but opposite party No.4 did not tell the complainant that cheque in his favour has been received but with in-complete account number of the complainant.  Rather opposite party No.4 instead of getting this clarification from the complainant or from opposite party No.1, who issued the cheque in favour of the complainant , intentionally which cannot be expected from a prudent banker, credited this cheque amount to the account of one Amandeep Kaur having saving bank account No. 1932000100112855. This Forum is surprised how opposite party No.4 credited this cheque amount of Rs. 57,044/- in the account of one Amandeep Kaur having saving bank account No. 1932000100112855 fully knowing that the cheuqe was in favour of one Boota Singh son of Jagir Singh i.e. complainant. Further, the account number so written by opposite party No.1, in which that cheque amount is to be credited , was 11284  but opposite party No.4 with blind  eyes credited this cheque amount in saving bank account No. 1932000100112855 in the name of one  Amandeep Kaur. Rather this shows that  the concerned employee of opposite party No.4 did not work as a prudent bank employee rather he intentionally with malafide intention credited this cheque amount in the account of one  Amandeep Kaur bearing saving bank account No. 1932000100112855.
15. Ld.counsel for the opposite parties No.3 & 4 submitted the cheque in question was issued by opposite party No.1 in favour of the complainant on 5.12.2008 and the same was got  encashed by opposite party No.4 through clearance  from opposite party No.3 and the amount was debited  to the account of opposite party No.1 in opposite party No.3 bank on 3.1.2009, but the present complaint has been filed by the complainant on 2.12.2014 i.e. after a lapse of a period of about 6 years, so the complaint  is barred by limitation. Here we do not agree with this contention of the ld.counsel for the opposite parties No. 3 & 4 particularly of opposite party No.4 because the complainant approached opposite party No.4 so many times and ultimately opposite party No.4 bank has given certificate dated 28.11.2013 Ex.C-3 to the complainant that amount of this cheque has not been credited in the account of the complainant , which fully proves that cause of action continued accruing to the complainant because the cheque was not sent by opposite party No.1 to the complainant but directly to opposite party No.4 i.e. banker of the complainant  where the complainant had saving bank account  and it was the duty of opposite party No.4 to inform the complainant regarding the amount of the cheque in question whether credited to his account or not . Rather they (opposite party No. 4 )  issued certificate dated 28.11.2013 Ex.C-3 to the complainant that this cheque amount was not credited to the account of the complainant. This amount was the hard earned money of the complainant a labourer. As such he was not aware of the intricacies of the law and he only came to know about the fate of his amount of EPF i.e. amount of the cheque in question from opposite party No.4 bank on 28.11.2013 when the opposite party No.4 issued this certificate Ex.C-3. As such we hold that cause of action accrued to the complainant to file this complaint on 28.11.2013 and the complaint was filed by the complainant on 2.12.2014 , which is well within limitation.
16. The above discussion, evidence on record fully prove that opposite party No.4 not only committed deficiency of service rather unfair trade practice by crediting this cheque amount of Rs. 57,044/- in the account of one Amandeep kaur bearing saving bank account No. 1932000100112855  which has no consonance with account No. 1932000100112846 inadvertently written as 11284 in the name of Boota Singh son of Jagir Singh, by opposite party No.1 in letter Ex.OP4/2. Being a prudent banker, opposite party No.4 should have got clarification from opposite party No.1 or they would have sent the cheque back to opposite party No.1 , rather opposite party No.4 got this cheque amount through clearing and intentionally credited in the account of one Amandeep Kaur. So certainly opposite party No.4 has committed grave blunder not only deficiency of service, to the complainant.
17. Consequently we allow this complaint with costs against opposite party No.4  and opposite party No.4 is directed to immediately pay this amount or credit this amount of Rs. 57,044/-  to the account of the complainant alongwith interest @ 9%p.a. from the date this amount was got cleared by opposite party No.4 through clearing i.e. 3.1.2009 from the account of opposite party No.3, till the payment is made to the complainant. Opposite party No.4 is advised to take appropriate action rather disciplinary action against the concerned official, who has committed this mistake intentionally thereby depriving the complainant from his hard earned money . Opposite party No.4 is also directed to pay litigation expenses Rs. 5000/- to the complainant.  Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

27.01.2016                                                           ( Bhupinder Singh )

President

/R/                        ( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)           (Anoop Sharma)

Member                                   Member