BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

  Complaint No.143 of 2018

       Date of Instt. 06.04.2018

       Date of Decision:30.05.2022

Nitika Saini aged about 32 years daughter of Rajeshwar Singh Saini resident of Lal Kothi Madhopur, Near Post Office, P. O. Madhopur, Tehsil Pathankot, District Gurdaspur at present H. No.35, Professor Colony, Rama Mandi, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1.       ICICI Bank Limited, ICICI Bank Tower, Near Chakli Circle, Old      Padra Road, Vadodara-390007, Gujrat.

          Through its CEO/Managing Director/Authorized Representative.

2.       ICICI Bank Limited, Hoshiarpur Road, Guru Nanak Complex,         Rama Mandi, Jalandhar.

          Through its Branch Manager/Authorized Representative.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj             (President)

                   Smt. Jyotsna                            (Member)

                   Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon       (Member)   

Present:       Sh. Rohit Gambhir, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.

                   Sh. Y. V. Rishi, Adv. Counsel for the OPs No.1 and 2.

Order

Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)

1.                The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein it is alleged that the OPs are indulged in the banking services and the complainant is customer of the OPs and having her saving account bearing no.027301521030, MICR-144229009, IFSC-ICIC0002176 with the OP No.2. The complainant is doing a small scale business of electronics goods for her livelihood and purchasing the electronics goods from M/s D. V. Enterprises, Ludhiana and sells the same to the customers. The complainant making the payment of above said purchase through online banking services to the said M/s D. V. Enterprises, Ludhiana. On 20.03.2018 the complainant placed an order to the said M/s D. V. Enterprises and at the time of making payment for the same through online banking, the transfer of the payment failed. Then the complainant approached the OP No.2 and narrated about the said problem in online banking. The OP No.2 disclosed the complainant that the server of the bank system is down and it will take 10-12 hours for the system to work properly. Then the complainant asked the OP No.2 to check the balance amount in the said saving account of complainant. On the request of the complainant, the OP No.2 issued the summary of account/balance of the saving account bearing no.027301521030, which shows the balance in the saving account of the complainant is Rs.53,738/-. Thereafter, the complainant issued a cheque bearing No.010905 dated 20.03.2018 for Rs.53,000/- from her saving account no.027301521030 of ICICI Bank, Rama Mandi Jalandhar Branch, Guru Nanak Complex, Hoshiarpur Road, Rama Mandi, Jalandhar in favour of the M/s D. V. Enterprises. The complainant got shocked when the concerned person the D. V. Enterprises informed the complainant the said cheque was dishonored on 21.03.2018 with the reason ‘funds insufficient’. After receiving the said information from the concerned of M/s D. V. Enterprises, the complainant immediately contacted the OP No.2 and narrated about the fate of the dishonored of the said cheque, whereas the complainant was having sufficient balance in her account to meet the payment of the said cheque at the time of its presentation. Then the officials of the OP No.2 go through the bank account details of the complainant to see the balance amount in the saving account of the complainant and felt sorry for the said act and conduct. The officials of the OP No.2 asked the complainant to present the said cheque again and assured the complainant that the said cheque of the complainant will be encashed on its presentation in the account of M/s D. V. Enterprises to present the said cheque again, but the complainant became stunned to know that the cheque again dishonored with the remarks ‘funds insufficient’, which amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Thereafter, the concerned person of the M/s D. V. Enterprises visited the work place of the complainant at Jalandhar and stated the said fact of the dishonored of the cheque, at that time the complainant was accompanied with her customers and neighbours i.e. 6-7 persons, which was embarrassing to the complainant which lower the reputation of the complainant in front of the customers and neighbors. The complainant has to compromised the matter with M/s D. V. Enterprises and had paid Rs.53,000/- alongwith the cheque bounce charges to the concerned person of M/s D. V. Enterprises and the said person handed over the original cheque and memos to the complainant. The OPs are guilty for rendering, deficient and negligent services and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to pay damages of Rs.1,00,000/- alongwith litigation expenses of Rs.25,000/- for their negligent and deficient services rendered to the complainant.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, who filed reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the complaint is neither maintainable in law nor on facts and the same is liable to be dismissed in limine. There has been no negligence or deficiency in service or unfair trade practice, whatsoever on the part of the OPs to the complainant, the present complaint deserves to be dismissed by this Commission on this ground alone. It is further averred that the present complaint is false, malicious, incorrect and malafide and is nothing, but an abuse of the process of the law. The complainant has not approached this Commission with clean hands. The complainant well aware and still concealed the fact that there has been disputed credit entry in her account for Rs.10,000/- on 17.02.2018. The dispute in respect of said entry was raised by Mr. Avneesh Sharma having ICICI Bank account No.017701509785 with Gurgaon-DLF Branch of OPs. It is further averred that there is no cause of action in favour of the complainant and against OPs.  The complainant being well aware of the fact that available balance in her account for transactions is Rs.43,738/- due to lien marked in her account for Rs.10,000/- on account of disputed transaction which she could not explain to the OPs, still to put illegal pressure and in order to misuse the process of law. She wrongly drew cheque for Rs.53,000/- on her bank account which has been rightly dishonored by the OPs for the reason funds insufficient. There is no negligence, deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the party of the OPs. The complainant is barred by her own act, conduct and admission from filing the present complaint and claiming the relief as prayed by her. On merits, the factum with regard to having saving account of the complainant with the OP No.2 is admitted, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.

3.                Rejoinder to the written statement filed by the complainant, whereby reasserted the entire facts as narrated in the complaint and denied the allegations raised in the written statement. 

4.                In order to prove the case of the complainant, the counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.CA alongwith some documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-7 and closed the evidence.

5.                In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the counsel for the OPs No.1 and 2 tendered into evidence affidavit as Ex.OPs No.1 & 2/1 to Ex.OPs No.1 & 2/6 and closed the evidence.

6.                We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the case file as well as written arguments submitted by counsel for both the parties, very minutely.

7.                   It has been admitted by the OPs that the complainant is the customer of the OP and is having her saving account bearing no.027301521030 with the OP No.2. The complainant has proved on record the copy of account statement Ex.C-1. As per the contention of the complainant, she got summary of account/balance of saving account no.027301521030 from OP No.2, though denied by OP No.2, which shows the balance in her account as Rs.53,738/-. The summary of account has been proved as Ex.C-3, which shows that the statement of account is from 20.02.2018 to 20.03.2018 and the same was issued on 20.03.2018. The complainant has proved on record the bill of D. V. Enterprises, from whom she alleged to have purchased the electronic goods, Ex.C-2 which shows that the bill is for Rs.53,000/-. The bill is dated 20.03.2018. She issued a cheque of Rs.53,000/- for the bill Ex.C-2 in the name of D. V. Enterprises on 20.03.2018. As per Ex.C-3, the balance in her account was Rs.53,738/-. Ex.C-5 is the memo, vide which it has been informed to M/s D. V. Enterprises that the cheque issued by the complainant for Rs.53,000/- has been dishonored by the ICICI Bank with the reason ‘Funds Insufficient’. The cheque was again presented and the same was again dishonored for the same reasons on 23.03.2018 i.e. for ‘Funds Insufficient’. It has been alleged by the complainant that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs as she was having sufficient balance to clear the cheque of Rs.53,000/-, but due to deficiency in service of the OPs, the cheque was dishonored on the ground of insufficient of funds.

8.                The contention of the OPs on the other hand is that there was a dispute regarding the amount of Rs.10,000/-, which was raised by Mr. Avnish Sharma having ICICI Bank account no.017701509785. This entry was credited in the account of the complainant on 17.02.2018. The OPs have proved on record the letter written by Mr.Avneesh Sharma to the bank on 19.02.2018 regarding the entry of Rs.10,000/- in the account of the complainant inadvertently/wrongly as Ex.OP1&2/1. The documents given by Mr. Avneesh Sharma to the bank have been proved as Ex.OP1&2/2 and Ex.OP1&2/3. The amount is shown to have been deposited in the account of the complainant on 17.02.2018 as per Ex.OP1&2/4 and the email sent to Vikas Khera/RCLG/IBANK/RMJL from Deepak Mahendru has been proved as Ex.OP1&2/6 and further email sent by Rajib Roy to Manisha Pant to mark lien in the account and get the debit authorization from the customer. Thus, the contention of the OPs is that due to the disputed entry, the cheque was not cleared.

9.                Perusal of the entire record produced by both the parties, it is clear from the documents Ex.OP1&2/5 and Ex.C-3 that on 19.03.2018, there was a clear cut balance shown as Rs.53,738/- in the account of the complainant and the cheque was of Rs.53,000/- given on 20.03.2018, even on 21.03.2018 when the cheque was returned for the first time, the clear cut balance of Rs.53,325/- has been shown in Ex.OP1&2/5. The reason mentioned in the memo Ex.C-5 is ‘funds insufficient’, which is against the record i.e. on the date when the cheque was dishonored i.e. on 21.03.2018, the balance of Rs.53,325/- was therein the account of the complainant. In the entire statement Ex.OP1&2/5 and Ex.C-3 & Ex.C-1, there is no reference of the fact that the credit entry of Rs.10,000/- dated 17.02.2018 is a disputed entry and the same has been wrongly deposited in the account of the complainant. The email proved on record by the OPs is dated 19.02.2018, but in the account statement, nothing has been shown nor any remarks of stoppage of the account or the stoppage of the clearing of the cheque has been mentioned. There is nothing on the record to show that there was a disputed credit entry, but on the other hand as per the record, the clear cut balance was there, but despite that the memo has wrongly been issued of insufficient funds, which is contradictory to the account statement. Thus, there is a deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The OPs have not written any letter nor sent any message nor called the complainant nor informed the complainant about the wrong entry made in the account of the complainant and as such, the negligence of the OPs has been proved and the complainant is entitled for the relief as claimed.

10.              In the light of above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed and OPs are directed to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- for causing mental tension, pain, agony, physical inconvenience and harassment to the complainant and the OPs are further directed to pay Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses. The entire compliance be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

11.              Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated          Jaswant Singh Dhillon    Jyotsna               Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj     

30.05.2022         Member                          Member           President