DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.

 

Consumer Complaint No.: CC/55/2017

Date of Institution : 28.04.2017

Date of Decision : 16.04.2019

Jaspal Singh son of Bahadur Singh resident of Village Tibba, Tehsil Dhuri, District Sangrur (Punjab).   

           …Complainant

Versus

HDFC Bank Ltd., Branch Mehal Kalan, District Barnala through its Branch Manager. 

        …Opposite Party

Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act,1986.

Present: Sh. Rajan Chaudhary counsel for the complainant.

Sh. AK Jindal counsel for the opposite party. 

Quorum.-

1. Sh. Amrinder Singh Sidhu : President

2. Sh. Tejinder Singh Bhangu : Member

(ORDER BY AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU PRESIDENT):

    The complainant namely Jaspal Singh son of Bahadur Singh  has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended up to date) against HDFC Bank Limited, Branch Mehal Kalan (hereinafter referred as opposite party).  

2. The brief facts of the present complaint as stated by the complainant are that the complainant is posted as SS Master in Government Middle School, Khiali Tehsil and District Barnala and have a saving Bank Account bearing No. 04321050038243 and a cheque book also issued by the opposite party. Further, the salary of the complainant is deposited in the said account by the employer of the complainant.

3. It is further alleged that on 12.12.2016 the complainant produced cheque No. 000044 for Rs. 8,000/- to withdraw the amount from the said account. However, the Manager of the opposite party bank refused to encash the same and pressed the complainant to withdraw only Rs. 4,000/- and forcible made cutting on the said cheque and paid Rs. 4,000/- only. Further, on 1.2.2017 the complainant produced cheque No. 000052 for Rs. 10,000/- to withdraw the amount from the said account but this time also the Manager forcibly made cutting and paid Rs. 4,000/- only. It is further submitted that on the same day the opposite party bank cleared cheque of Rs. 8,000/- of some other person. So, it is clear cut deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. The complainant even sent a legal notice dated 17.2.2017 but to no effect. Hence the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs:-

1) The opposite party may be directed to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment.     

2) To pay Rs. 10,000/- on account of litigation expenses.   

3) The opposite party be further directed to pay above mentioned amount of Rs. 60,000/- with future interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till actual realization. 

4) Any other relief which this Forum deems fit.   

4. Upon the service of notice of this complaint, opposite party appeared and filed written version taking legal objections on the grounds that the complainant has no locus standi and cause of action to file the present complaint. Further the opposite party objected that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute involved in the present complaint as it is not a consumer dispute. Further the opposite party objected that the present complaint is hopelessly barred by limitation and complaint is bad for non joinder and mis joinder of necessary parties.  

5. On merits, it is admitted by the opposite party that complainant is having a saving account with the opposite party and he is employed in Education Department. Further the opposite party submitted that on 12.12.2016 an amount of Rs. 4,000/- has been paid by the opposite party to the complainant. It is denied by them that the opposite party bank refused to encash the cheque or pressed to obtain Rs. 4,000/- instead of Rs. 8,000/-. It is alleged by the opposite party that the Government of India declared demonetization in whole country on 8.11.2016 due to which there was shortage of cash with the opposite party bank and opposite party distribute the cash which they received from the higher branches in equal between the customers of the opposite party bank.

6. It is admitted by the opposite party that amount of Rs. 4,000/- paid by them to the complainant on 1.2.2017, Rs. 8,000/- on 16.12.2016 and Rs. 8,000/- on 18.1.2017. It is denied by the opposite party that the    opposite party showed any partiality with the complainant at the time of distribution of cash which is available with them. The opposite party performed their duties properly and as per rules and regulations of the RBI.    Lastly, the opposite party prayed for the dismissal of the present case with costs.

7. The complainant in order to support his complaint has tendered in evidence copy of pass book as Ex.C-1, copy of legal notice as Ex.C-2, postal receipt as Ex.C-3, copy of reply dated 2.3.2017 as Ex.C-4, copy of rejoinder dated 15.3.2017 as Ex.C-5, postal receipt as Ex.C-6, affidavit of complainant as Ex.C-7 and closed  the  evidence. 

8. On the other hand the opposite party No. 1 to support their version have tendered into evidence affidavit of Bavnish Singla Branch Manager as Ex.OP-1, copy of detail of currency notes with the opposite party bank as Ex.OP-2 and closed the evidence.  

9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file. Written arguments also filed by both the parties.

10. It is admitted fact between the parties that the complainant maintained a saving Account bearing No. 04321050038243 with the opposite party. Further, the opposite party issued a pass book Ex.C-1 to the complainant, so the complainant is the consumer of the opposite party. It is also admitted by the parties that the salary of the complainant is deposited in the said account by the employer of the complainant. 

11. The main grievance of the complainant as argued by his counsel that on 12.12.2016 when the complainant produced cheque to withdraw the amount of Rs. 8,000/- then the Manager of the bank forcibly by making cutting on the cheque only paid Rs. 4,000/-. Similarly, when on 1.2.2017 the complainant produced the cheque to withdraw the amount of Rs. 10,000/- then again Manager of the opposite party refused to pay the amount of said cheque and forcibly by making cutting only paid Rs. 4,000/- whereas on the same day the opposite party cleared the cheue of Rs. 8,000/- of some other person. On the basis of both these incidents the complainant submitted in his complaint that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. He also got issued legal notice Ex.C-2 in this regard which was sent through postal receipt Ex.C-3, the reply of which is Ex.C-4. He also filed his affidavit Ex.C-7 to support his case. 

12. On the other hand, the counsel for the opposite party argued that Government of India declared demonetization in whole country on 8.11.2016 due to which there was shortage of cash with the opposite party bank and opposite party distribute the cash whichever received from their higher branches in equal between the customers of the bank. It is admitted by the opposite party that on 1.2.2017 amount of Rs. 4,000/- was paid to the complainant. But on 16.12.2016 and 18.1.2017 the complainant received Rs. 8,000/- respectively from the opposite party but this fact concealed by the complainant from this Forum. To support their case the opposite party filed affidavit of Bavnish Singla Ex.OP-1 and detail of currency notes Ex.OP-2. 

13. The main documents which are in dispute in the present complaint are two cheques issued by the complainant i.e. Cheque No. 000044 dated 12.12.2016 and Cheque No. 000052 dated 1.2.2017 vide which the complainant claim that the opposite party gave him less payment than he wanted to withdraw from his account with the bank. The complainant failed to tender these cheques or photocopies in his evidence by exhibiting the same. The complainant deposed in his affidavit Ex.C-7 that on 1.2.2017 the opposite party cleared the cheque of Rs. 8,000/- of some other person but he failed to prove it. The opposite party also taken a plea in their written version that the complainant received Rs. 8,000/- on 16.12.2016 and also received Rs. 8,000/- on 18.1.2017. But the complainant has not mentioned these entries in his complaint or affidavit and also not produced on the file the bank pass book of the relevant dates to rebut this plea of the opposite party. As the complainant failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party so this complaint is liable to be dismissed. 

14. The Hon'ble National Commission, New Delhi in case titled TDI Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Versus Rajesh Jain bearing Revision Petition No. 1628 of 2015 decided on 1st December 2015 held in para No. 9 as under.-

“9. We are unable to agree with the contentions raised by her. The complaint of the respondent must stand on its legs. The general rule is that the consumer can purchase only one house, if he is asking for an exception, in that event, it is the complainant and nobody else who is to carry the ball in proving that he has not purchased the same for commercial purpose.”

This citation is applicable to the present complaint as in the present complaint also the complainant failed to prove his case for the want of leading evidence to prove his complaint.  

15. In view of the above discussion, the complainant failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, so the present complaint is dismissed. However, there is no order of costs or compensation. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance.

Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President who is the author of this order, assumed Additional Charge of this Forum as President on 01.01.2019 for only two days a week and this complaint is decided as soon as possible on the conclusion of arguments on 16.04.2019 by the learned counsel for parties.  

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM:

16th Day of April 2019

 

 

 

            (Amrinder Singh Sidhu)

           President

 

 

           (Tejinder Singh Bhangu)                Member