Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/19/322

Gagan deep Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC Bank - Opp.Party(s)

L.C.Bector Adv.

26 Jul 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No:322 dated 09.07.2019.                                                         Date of decision: 26.07.2024.

 

1. Gagandeep Kaur wife of Sukhjinder Singh, resident of Ward No.4, Grain Market, Samrala, Tehsil Samrala, Distt. Ludhiana.       
2. Lakhvir Singh son of Sh. Nachhattar Singh, resident of Village Todarpur, Tehsil & P.S. Samrala, Distt. Ludhiana.                                                                                                                            ..…Complainants

                                                Versus

1. HDFC Bank Ltd., Branch Samrala, through its Branch Manager.
2. Punjab National Bank, G.T. Road, Khanna, through its Branch Manager.                                                                      …..Opposite parties 

Complaint Under Section 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainants            :         Sh. L.C. Bector, Advocate.

For OP1                         :         Sh. Rahul Rajput, Advocate.

For OP2                         :         Complaint against OP2 not admitted vide order                                           dated 19.07.2019.

 

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

1.                Briefly stated, the facts of the complaint are that complainant No.1 has account No.08011530012425 with OP1. Complainant No.2 issued one payee account cheque No.104676 dated 21.11.2017 for an amount of Rs.4,31,000/- in favour of complainant No.1 from his account No.3466000103070826 with Punjab National Bank, branch Samrala, who presented the cheque on 27.11.2017 for encashment with OP1 through their accountant Mr. Tajinder Singh and handed over the same to Madam Harmanavdeep Kaur, Clerk in OP1 branch. Complainant No.1 checked her account after few days and came to know that the cheque amount has not been deposited in her account and enquiry was made from the bank. Even after checking his account, Lakhvir Singh came to know that the cheque amount of Rs.4,31,000/- has been debited from his account on 01.12.2017 in favour of Dinesh Kumar. On enquiry, it came to notice that the cheque has been encashed by Punjab National Bank, G.T. Road branch, Khanna and same was got encashed by one Dinesh Kumar son of Devi Lal through A.U. Small Finance Bank Limited, Municipal Branch Khanna by deleting the name of Gagandeep Kaur from the cheque and by writing his own name on the cheque, rewriting the whole cheque in wide sketch pen. The original cheque was available in record of Punjab National Bank branch G.T. Road, Khanna. The complainants stated that the said Dinesh Kumar stolen the cheque from HDFC Bank Limited, branch Samrala and he by forging his name on the cheque fraudulently got the payment of the cheque. The concerned clerk of Punjab National Bank, Khanna in collusion with Dinesh Kumar did not notice erasing of name of Gagandeep Kaur and writing name of Dinesh Kumar in wide sketch pen in capital letters. Even the signatures of Lakhvir Singh were forged by tracing with the same wide sketch pen after erasing original signatures. The complainant registered an FIR No.63 dated 22.03.2018 in Police Station Samrala under Section 420/465/467/468/471 IPC. The police enquired the matter from where it came to notice that some person with impersonation opened account No.3643901355 at Central Bank of India, Millerganj, Ludhiana by using identity proof of Dinesh Kumar son of Devi Lal, House No.34/4854, Pavitar Nagar, Ludhiana but no such Dinesh Kumar was found at the said address. The complainants further stated that HDFC Bank Ltd., branch Samrala is liable to pay the cheque amount along with interest as its officials were negligent in keeping the cheque safe and they are hand in glove with Dinesh Kumar. The complainants claimed to have suffer loss of Rs.4,31,000/- besides mental torture, agony etc. for which they are entitled for compensation. The complainants sent a legal notice dated 30.01.2019 upon the OPs but no reply was given. Hence this complaint, whereby the complainant has prayed for issuing directions to the OPs to pay Rs.4,31,000/- along with interest and compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-.

2.                The complaint against OP2 was not admitted vide order dated 19.07.2019.

3.                Upon notice, OP1 appeared and filed written statement by taking preliminary objections assailed the complaint on the ground of maintainability; the complainants have not approached this Commission with clean hands; the complainants are not consumers; lack of cause of action etc. OP1 stated that the complainants never handed over the cheque to their employee and have made vague and false allegations against it. The complainants have not suffered any loss.

                   On merits, OP1 reiterated the crux of averments made in the preliminary objections.  OP1 has denied that there is any deficiency of service and has also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                In support of their claim, complainant No.2 Sh. Lakhvir Singh tendered his affidavit Ex. CA in which he reiterated the allegations and the claim of compensation as stated in the complaint. The complainant also tendered documents Ex. C1 is the copy of cheque No.104676, Ex. C2 is the copy of FIR No.63 of 2018, Ex. C3 is the copy of legal notice dated 30.01.2019, Ex. C4 and Ex. C5 are the postal receipts, Ex. C6 is the copy of Aadhar Card of Gagandeep Kaur and closed the evidence.

5.                On the other hand, counsel for OP1 tendered affidavit Ex. RA of Sh. Amit, Authorized Signatory of OP1 and closed the evidence.

6.                We have heard the arguments of the counsel for the parties and also gone through the complaint, affidavit and annexed documents and written reply along with affidavit produced on record by both the parties.       

7.                Complainant No.2 Lakhvir Singh used to cultivate land on lease of husband of complainant No.1 namely Sukhjinder Singh. According to the complainants, complainant No.1 issued a cheque at the instance of her husband Sukhjinder Singh on 21.11.2017 for a sum of Rs.4,31,000/- drawn on Punjab National Bank, branch Samrala and the cheque was presented for encashment at HDFC Bank Ltd., branch Samrala through accountant Tajinder Singh. Further the said cheque stated to have been allegedly stolen from the bank premises by one Dinesh Kumar who erased the name of original payee and rewritten the same in his own name. Further as per version of complainant No.2 in the FIR Ex. C2, one Dinesh Kumar got the account opened in A.U. Small Finance Bank Limited, Municipal branch Khanna and fraudulently got the amount credited in the said account and later on withdrew the same through ATM in installments. The FIR was registered against Dinesh Kumar, U/s.420/465/267/468/471 IPC and it has been further mentioned therein that the role of other suspects may also be examined during the course of investigation. The OP1 bank in his written version denied the presentation of the cheque at its branch.

8.                Admittedly, in this case, Sukhjinder Singh, Landlord, Tajinder Singh Accountant and the alleged employee Harmanavdeep Kaur did not came forward to shed light on the controversy.

9.                From the close scrutiny of the pleadings and documents on record, the following issues arise for consideration:-

(i)      Whether complainant No.2 Lakhvir Singh issued cheque bearing No.104676 for an amount of Rs.4,31,000/- out of his savings account No.3466000103070826 with Punjab National Bank, Branch Samrala in favour of complainant No.1 Gagandeep Kaur in discharge of any antecedents debt or liability?

(ii)     Whether on 27.11.2017, complainant No.1’s accountant Tajinder Singh visited HDFC Bank, branch Samrala and tabled the said cheque before Harmanavdeep Kaur stated to be Clerk of the bank who was engrossed in the business of the bank?

(iii)    Whether some unknown person or Dinesh Kumar S/o. Devi Lal unlawfully removed the cheque from HDFC Bank Ltd. branch at Samrala without the express consent and concurrence of the officials of the bank?

(iv)     Whether Dinesh Kumar dishonesty and fraudulently opened an account No.3643901355 at A.U. Small Finance Bank Limited, Municipal Area Branch, Khanna on the basis of fictitious documents and presented the cheque after obliterating the name of complainant No.1 and substituting and rewriting his own name with wide sketch pen?

(v)      Whether Dinesh Kumar presented the said cheque for encashment and got fraudulently encashed the cheque in his account and later on, withdrew the same through different ATM transactions?

(vi)     Whether the officials of Punjab National Bank, G.T. Road branch, Khanna in-collusion in conspiracy with Dinesh Kumar who cleared the cheque without minutely examining the tempering of the cheque in question?

 

10.              Apparently, the aforesaid issues contain intricate questions of facts and law which further require leading of lengthy and elaborate oral as well as documentary evidence by the parties. The proceedings before this Commission are summary in nature and adjudication of such like complex and disputed questions are beyond the scope of this Commission. Further there are allegations of fraud and forgery as well and this Commission cannot go into the allegations to determine the allegations of fraud. Therefore, the appropriate remedy available with the complainant under the circumstances is to go to appropriate court of law for redressal of their grievance. In this regard, reference can be made to The Chairman & Managing Director, City Union Bank Ltd. & Anr. Vs R. Chandramohan in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 251, whereby the Hon’ble Supreme Court has made the following observations:-

“Consumer Protection Act 1986 – The proceedings before the Commission being summary in nature, the complaints involving highly disputed questions of facts or the cases involving tortuous acts or criminality like fraud or cheating, could not be decided by the Form/Commission under the said Act. The “deficiency in service”, as well settled, has to be distinguished from the criminal acts or tortuous acts.”

11.              As a result of above discussion, the complaint is hereby dismissed being not maintainable. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.        

12.              Due to huge pendency of cases, the complaint could not be decided within statutory period.

 

(Monika Bhagat)                                (Sanjeev Batra)

Member                                                President         

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:26.07.2024.

Gobind Ram.