Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/20/98

Sarabjeet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

IDBI Bank Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

M.S Sethi adv

17 Feb 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No:98 dated 13.07.2020.                                                 Date of decision: 17.02.2022.

Sarbjeet Singh, H. No.661/2-B, Kabir Nagar, Basti Jodhewal, Near Pritam Auto Centre, Ludhiana-141007.                                                                                                                                                                  ..…Complainant

•  

1. IDBI Bank Ltd., B-15/295, Near Old Oswal Mills, Miller Ganj, Ludhiana-141003 through Bank Manager.

2. IDBI Bank Ltd., Branch Sunder Nagar, Ludhiana through its Bank Manager.                                                                                 …..Opposite parties

                             Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. M.S. Sethi, Advocate

For OPs                          :         Sh. N.S. Rana, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

1.                Shorn of the necessary details, the case of the complainant is that he maintains a bank account No.0144104000059370 with OPs. On 27.04.2020, the complainant deposited cheque No.036797 for Rs.40,000/- drawn on Vijaya Bank, Yamunanagar Branch, Haryana  with OP2. The said cheque was issued by Pankaj Behl to discharge his legal liability towards the complainant in response to legal notice served upon him as cheque No.036788 dated 09.07.2018 previously issued by him had been dishonoured. The complainant received message on his mobile on 01.05.2020 at 03.35 PM that the said cheque has been dishonoured by Vijaya Bank due to the fact that the validity date of the cheque had expired. The complainant collected the original cheque and the memo dated 01.05.2020 from OP2 on 02.05.2020. The complainant came to know that the cheque presented by him on 27.04.2020 was in fact presented by OP2 only on 01.05.2020 as per the bank memo Ex. C3. The cheque was tempered by the officials of the OPs in as much as there are two stamps of different dates on the back of the cheque i.e. 27.04.2020 and 30.04.2020 and there is no stamp of 01.05.2020. The OPs were requested to keep CCTV footage of the period from 27.04.2020 to 02.05.2020 intact. Moreover, as per norms, the credit of the cheque is required to be given in the account on the same date when the cheque is deposited, but the OPs failed to do the needful in time and did not give any credit till 01.05.2020 and thereafter, reversed the credit entry on the same date. In addition to this, they also charged a sum of Rs.177/- on account of dishonouring of the cheque. As a matter of fact, the cheque was dishonoured due to laxity on the part of the OPs. This amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the OPs which has caused wrongful loss to the complainant. The complainant got served a legal notice dated 06.05.2020 to which they gave a reply mentioning false and frivolous grounds. In the end, it has been requested that the OPs be directed to pay a compensation of rs.40,000/- as the amount of dishonoured cheque along with compensation of Rs.40,000/- for rendering deficient/negligent service and further the OPs be made to pay interest @12% per annum and also litigation expenses of Rs.7,500/-.

2.                Upon notice, the OPs initially did not appear and were proceeded against exparte. However, later on, the OPs through Sh. N.S. Rana, Advocate filed an application for setting aside exparte order dated 30.04.2021 and vide order dated 20.09.2021, the OPs were allowed to join the proceedings from the stage the complaint was pending at.

3.                In evidence, complainant submitted her affidavit Ex.CA along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex.C5 and closed the evidence.

4.                No written statement was filed on behalf of the OPs. However, the OPs were permitted to tender the evidence and as such, the counsel for the  Ops tendered affidavit Ex. RA of Sh. Anshul Methi, Branch Manager of IDBI Bank Ltd., Sunder Nagar branch, Ludhiana along with document Ex. OP1 to Ex. OP6 and closed the evidence.

5.                We have heard the counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record on the file very carefully.

6.                During the course of arguments, the counsel for the complainant has contended that from the backside of the cheque which is Ex. C2, it is evident that it was firstly presented on 27.04.2020, but surprisingly enough, it was not encashed on that date. It is further evident that thereafter, the cheque Ex. C2 was stamped on 30.04.2020 which means that the cheque was again presented on 30.04.2020. Later on, the cheque was returned dishonoured vide memo Ex. C3 with an observation that the cheque has become out date which means that the validity period of 3 months expired on 30.04.2020 when the cheque was presented. According to the counsel for the complainant, the cheque should have been encashed on 27.04.2020 itself when it was still valid and late sending of the cheque to clearance on 30.04.2020 clearly amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the OPs.

7.                On the other hand, the counsel for the OPs has argued that the cheque was presented on 27.04.2020, but due to some technical glitch in the system, the cheque could not be scanned to the issuing bank i.e. Vijaya Bank. After scrutiny, the cheque was again put in the clearing on 30.04.2020 and on that day also, many cheques were not accepted for clearing due to 16-IQA validation failure which was beyond human effort or control. Therefore, no negligence or deficiency of service can be attributed to the OPs. It has also been contended by the counsel for the OPs that even otherwise issuer of the cheque namely Pankaj Behl had instructed his bank i.e. Vijaya Bank to stop the payment of the cheque on 22.04.2020. Therefore, the complainant cannot be said to have suffered a loss as the payment of the cheque had been stopped by the issuer and even if there was no 16-IQA validation, the cheque would not have been honoured as its payment had already been stopped by the drawer.

8.                We have weighed the contentions raised by the counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully.

9.                 Admittedly, the cheque Ex. C1 was presented for encashment on 27.04.2020 as is evident from the stamp of the said date affixed on the back of the cheque which is Ex. C2. According to the OPs, on 27.04.2020, the cheque could not be properly scanned due to a technical glitch in the system and its scanned copy could not be sent to the drawing branch of Vijaya Bank and for this reason, the cheque could not be encashed on 27.04.2020. Thereafter, the cheque was again sent to the clearing house and again it was returned unpaid vide memo Ex. C3 dated 01.05.2020 with the reason that the instrument had become outdated meaning that the validity of three months expired by the time it was presented for encashment. Under the circumstances, the fact remains that the cheque was not encashed despite the cheque was submitted for encashment by the complainant on 27.04.2020. In our considered view, the complainant has nothing to do with the fact that there was some glitch in the system due to which the cheque could not be encashed in time on 27.04.2020 or 28.04.2020. It was for the OPs to ensure that the system was in place and working properly in such a manner that no cheque should have been returned. The plea that during those days, due to COVID, the bank was working withjust  50% attendance is also not tenable considering the fact that the cheque was not dishonoured for the delay in presenting the cheque, rather it was due to some fault in 16-IQA which is a digital system whereby the cheques are scanned and sent to the issuing branch for confirmation/encashment. The OP bank is a reputed nationalized bank and it is supposed to ensure the efficient working of its system at all times so that no inconvenience is caused to the customers. Therefore, it is definitely a case of deficiency of service on the part of the OPs.

10.              Now for word on quantum of compensation. The complainant has claimed that due to non encashment/dishonour of the cheque in question, the complainant could not prosecute the drawer of the cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act as the cheque was returned dishonour not on account of any fault on the part of the drawer because the cheque was presented for encashment in the clearing house after its validity period had expired. According to the counsel for the complainant, as a result of lapse on the part of the OP bank, the complainant lost the remedy of prosecuting the drawer by way of which he could have recovered the amount of the cheque amounting to Rs.40,000/-. However, in this regard, the complainant has not led any evidence to prove that after the cheque was returned unpaid, the drawer of the cheque did not pay him the amount of Rs.40,000/- or that he had to resort to some legal measure to recover the said amount from the drawer of the cheque or further that the said amount was still outstanding. In this regard, it is further pertinent to mention that in the affidavit Ex. RA of Sh. Anshul Methi, Branch Manager of OP Bank, it is mentioned that even otherwise the cheque in question could not have been encashed  because the drawer of the cheque namely Pankaj Behl has instructed his bank i.e. Vijaya Bank (Now Bank of Baroda) to stop the payment of the cheque on 22.04.2020. At the time of arguments, the counsel for the OPs has placed on record copy of the letter written to the Manager of Vijaya Bank dated 18.05.2020 on which it has been reported by the said bank that the payment of the said cheque was stopped on 22.04.2020. Taking this fact into consideration, in our considered view that even if the presentation of the cheque had not been delayed and had it was presented properly for encashment on 27.04.2020 itself, it would not have encashed. Therefore, in monetary terms no loss has been occasioned to the complainant. However, it does not absolve the OP Bank of its liability to provide proper service and to keep its system in place at all times so that no convenience is caused to the customers of the bank. Therefore, due to the fault in the system or clearing mechanism, in convenience was definitely caused to the complainant. In the given circumstances, in our considered view, it would be just and proper if the OPs are made to pay composite compensation of Rs.5,500/- to the complainant.

11.              As a result of above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed with an order that the OPs shall pay composite compensation of Rs.5,500/- (Rupees Five Thousand and Five Hundred only) to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.         

12.              Due to rush of work and spread of COVID-19, the case could not be decided within statutory period.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:17.02.2022.

Gobind Ram

Sarbjeet Singh Vs IDBI Bank Ltd.                                  CC/20/98

Present:       Sh. M.S. Sethi, Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh. N.S. Rana, Advocate for OPs.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint is partly allowed with an order that the OPs shall pay composite compensation of Rs.5,500/- (Rupees Five Thousand and Five Hundred only) to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.         

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:17.02.2022.

Gobind Ram