STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
U.T., CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. | : | 137 of 2013 |
Date of Institution | : | 01.04.2013 |
Date of Decision | : | 30.05.2013 |
1.Sh. Bhartendu Sood son of Late Sh. Bhupinder Nath, House No.231, Sector 45-A, Chandigarh.
2.Mrs. Neela Sood wife of Sh. Bhartendu Sood, House No.231, Sector 45-A, Chandigarh.
……Appellants/Complainants.
Versus
HDFC Bank, Sector 35, Chandigarh.
....Respondent/Opposite Party.
Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT.
SH. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.
Argued by:Sh. Bhartendu Sood, appellant No.1, in person and on behalf of appellant No.2.
Sh. H. S. Bhatia, Advocate for the respondent.
PER DEV RAJ, MEMBER.
This appeal is directed against the order dated 18.03.2013 (Annexure 1-A), rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which it dismissed the complaint of the complainants (now appellants), with no order as to costs.
2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainants had filed complaint before the District Forum, stating therein that two cheques bearing No.014426 and 014427 for Rs.30,000/- each drawn on HDFC Bank itself were deposited on 01.10.2012 in the morning in their Savings Bank Account No.00351000027358 with HDFC Bank, Sector 35, Chandigarh. It was further stated that the Opposite Party told the complainants that credit will be given by the evening on 01.10.2012. On 03.10.2012, the complainants issued cheque Nos.0271031 and 271030 for Rs.30,000/- each to Ind Swift Laboratory for term deposits. The complainants further stated that on 15.10.2012 when they went for passbook entries, they were shocked to know that the cheques issued in favour of Ind Swift Laboratories were dishonored by the Bank though they had clear balance of Rs.72,450/- (Annexure-1) when the aforesaid cheques were presented. It was further stated that Sh. Naveen Pal Singh, concerned Officer of the Bank was contacted who felt that it should not have happened and he would revert back soon. The complainants submitted a letter asking the Bank to compensate for loss of interest. Again the complainants contacted Mr. Naveen Pal Singh and after waiting for a month, the complaint was filed. According to the complainants, this was a clear case of deficiency in service and they prayed for compensating them for mental agony and physical harassment caused to them, for injury to their reputation besides imposing fine for ignoring the important issue and for not responding to their letter dated 15.10.2012. The complainants also requested for payment of litigation cost.
3. The Opposite Party filed its written statement, interalia, pleading that two cheques were not normal instruments but dividend warrants, which required special processing. The cheques were not presented on 01.10.2012, 02.10.2012 was a public holiday and, therefore, the same (cheques) were presented for credit on 03.10.2012. The Opposite Party termed the averment of complainant as false that the latter was told by it that the cheques deposited on 01.10.2012 shall be credited, in the account, on the same day and that HDFC Bank gives credit of the cheques drawn on the same Bank on the same day. It was stated that the complainants issued the cheques without there being balance in the account on 03.10.2012. It was also denied that Cheque Nos.014426 and 014427 were credited before the other two cheques drawn in favour of Ind Swift Laboratories, were presented for payment. The plea of the complainants that they came to know about dishonoring of cheques only on 15.10.2012 was also reported to be incorrect. It was further stated that SMS about dishonoring of cheques was sent to the complainants at their registered Mobile No.91-9217970381. The Opposite Party admitted that a letter dated 15.10.2012 was received by the Bank. The averment of the complainants that they had met Sh. Naveen Pal Singh was denied. It was further stated that there was no deficiency in rendering service on the part of the Opposite Party and, therefore, it (Opposite Party) could not be held responsible for the same.
4. The parties led evidence, in support of their case.
5. After hearing appellant No.1, in person, and on behalf of appellant No.2, and Counsel for the respondent, the District Forum dismissed the complaint, vide the impugned order dated 18.03.2012 with no order as to costs.
6. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants have filed the instant appeal.
7. We have heard Sh. Bhartendu Sood, appellant No.1, in person and, on behalf of appellant No.2, Counsel for the respondent, and, have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully.
8. Appellant No.1 submitted that he deposited the cheques of Rs.30,000/- each, drawn on HDFC Bank with the Opposite Party on 1.10.2012. He further submitted that on 03.10.2012 as per the statement of account of the complainants (Annexure I), the clear balance shown was of Rs.72,458.68Ps. He further submitted on 03.10.2012, the complainants presented two cheques of Rs.30,000/- each in favour of Ind Swift Laboratories for term deposits, which were illegally dishonoured by the Opposite Party for want of sufficient funds, in their account, though the statement of account (Annexure A-1) on 03.10.2012, showed clear balance of Rs.72,458.68Ps. He further submitted that realizing its lapse, that the cheques aforesaid issued by the complainants were illegally dishonoured, it (Opposite Party) reversed the cheque bouncing charges of Rs.1,235.96Ps, on 04.02.2013, which were debited on 11.12.2012. He further submitted that the aforesaid act of the Opposite Party, caused a lot of mental agony and physical harassment to the complainants. He further submitted that the Opposite Party was clearly deficient, in rendering service, but the District Forum, was wrong in holding otherwise. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being illegal is liable to be set aside.
9. The Counsel for the respondent, in his written submissions, submitted that two cheques deposited by the complainants in their account on 01.10.2012, were special instruments i.e. dividend warrants which required special processing. It was admitted that the cheques were not presented on 01.10.2012 whereas, 2nd October, 2012 was holiday. The same were presented on 03.10.2012. It was further submitted that the appellants were informed about the dishonoring of the cheques immediately by SMS at their Registered Mobile No.91-9217970381 on 03.10.2012 at 23:36:36 and their contention that they came to know about dishonoring of the cheques only on 15.10.2012 was absolutely incorrect and false. He further submitted that appellants never ensured sufficient balance, in their account, before issuing the cheques, which were rightly dishonoured. He further submitted that cheques numbers 014426 and 014427 were not credited when the other two cheques drawn in favour of Ind Swift Laboratories were presented for payment. It was further stated that the Bank did not receive letter dated 15.10.2012 and appellants never met Mr. Naveen Pal Singh. He further submitted that the District Forum rightly dismissed the complaint.
10. It was admitted by the respondent that the appellantsdeposited two cheques bearing No.014426 and 014427 each for Rs.30,000/- drawn on HDFC Bank on 01.10.2012. The respondent also admitted that 2nd October being holiday, the cheques were presented for credit on 03.10.2012. It is, thus, clear that but for holiday on 02.10.2012, the credit was afforded on 03.10.2012, and, in fact, the Bank did credit Rs.30,000/- each on 03.10.2012 against two cheques deposited by the appellants on 01.10.2012 thereby raising the balance in the account of the complainants to Rs.72,450/- on 03.10.2012 (Annexure I). The two cheques deposited by the appellants, in favour of Ind Swift Laboratories were once debited and then the amount was credited in the Savings Bank Account of the appellants and the closing balance in the Account of appellants as per last entry on 03.10.2012 was Rs.72,450/-. No doubt, according to the respondent, the credit against two cheques deposited by the appellants, was afforded on 03.10.2012 in the afternoon and before that two cheques in favour of Ind Swift Laboratories were deposited/presented on 03.10.2012 and, thus, the same were dishonoured. The contention of the respondent that the appellants were immediately informed about dishonoring of the cheques at their Registered Mobile No.91-92179-70381 on 03.10.2012 at 23:36:36 holds no water. Since, the Counsel for the respondent argued that Rs.60,000/- were credited to the account of the appellants, in the afternoon, the question of sending the SMS at 23:36:36, during the night hours, became irrelevant. Even the contents of the SMS were not brought on record. The argument advanced by the Counsel for the respondent in the face of Annexure I is apparently incorrect. As per the entries in Annexure I, statement of account, the two cheques in favour of Ind Swift Laboratories were presented after the respondent had afforded credit of Rs.60,000/- against the cheques deposited by the appellants on 01.10.2012. Men may lie, but the documents can’t. Thus, there being sufficient balance in the account of appellants, as per Annexure I, the cheques were wrongly dishonoured.
11. There is another contradiction in the plea of the respondent/opposite party. In the written statement/affidavit submitted before the District Forum, in Para No.5, the Opposite Party admitted……. “It is however correct that a letter dated 15.10.2012 has been received by the bank.” While submitting the written submissions in the District Forum, the Opposite Party changed its stance and stated that the letter dated 15.10.2012 was not received by the Bank. This statement has been repeated by the respondent in the written submissions, while contesting the appeal before us. In any case, the averment made in the affidavit, shall prevail. The plea that the cheques were different instruments, was not supported by any evidence. The facts of Punjab National Bank Vs. Shadi Lal and another (Supra) relied upon by the Counsel for the respondent, are distinguishable, from the facts of the instant case. In the aforesaid case, the cheque was dishonoured, for want of adequate funds. In the instant case, as per Annexure I, before dishonoring of the cheques, the appellants had sufficient funds, in their account.
12. From the facts and evidence on record, it was proved that it was not the appellants who were telling lies as alleged by the respondent, but it was the latter which had made wrong/contradictory submissions. The respondent did fault and there was decidedly deficiency, in rendering service, on its part on the following scores/counts;
a)The appellants deposited the two cheques drawn on HDFC on 01.10.2012 in HDFC Bank, credit against which was required to be given on the same day. The Bank afforded credit on 03.10.2012 prior to the presentation of two cheques in favour of Ind Swift Laboratories and still the same were dishonoured. Thus, the respondent was deficient in rendering the required service.
b)The respondent debited Rs.393.26 Ps and Rs.842.70 Ps, total Rs.1235.96Ps on 11.12.2012 against dishonoring of cheques. Realizing the mistake, the Bank reversed the entry of Rs.1,235.96Ps on 04.02.2013. Reversal of the entry of dishonoring charges by the respondent proved the fact that cheques were dishonoured wrongly.
13. One can visualize the mental condition of the persons, whose cheques are dishonoured, for want of funds, despite the fact that their statement of account Annexure I, showed clear balance of Rs.72,458.68Ps as on 03.10.2012, the date on which the cheques were illegally dishonoured. A lot of mental agony and physical harassment was, thus, caused to the appellants, on account of the wrongful act of the respondent.
14. No other point, was urged, by the parties.
15. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered view, that the District Forum erred in appreciating the evidence correctly, and thus, fell in a grave error in dismissing the complaint.
16. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is accepted with costs. The impugned order, rendered by the District Forum, is set aside, and the complaint filed by the appellants/complainants, before the District Forum, is partly allowed. The respondent/Opposite Party, is directed as under: -
(i) to pay Rs.15,000/- to the complainant, as compensation, for deficiency, in rendering service, mental agony and physical harassment;
(ii) to pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant, as costs of litigation.
17. This order shall be complied with, by the respondent/Opposite Party, within a period of 45 days, from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, it would be liable to pay the amount of compensation mentioned in Clauses (i) alongwith interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till the date of actual payment to the appellants/complainants, besides paying the litigation costs as aforesaid.
18. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
19. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.
Pronounced.
Date: 30-5-13.
Sd/-
[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
[DEV RAJ]
MEMBER
Ad
STATE COMMISSION
(First Appeal No.137 of 2013)
Argued by:Sh. Bhartendu Sood, appellant No.1, in person and on behalf of appellant No.2.
Sh. H. S. Bhatia, Advocate for the respondent.
Dated the 30th day of May, 2013.
ORDER
Vide our detailed order of the even date, recorded separately, this appeal filed by the appellants/complainants, has been accepted, with costs, as per directions.
Sd/- (DEV RAJ) MEMBER | Sd/- (JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER(RETD.)) PRESIDENT |
Ad
