Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/575/2017

Raja Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

Indian Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Adhiraj Thind Adv.

05 Apr 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	575 of 2017
Date  of  Institution	:	28.07.2017
Date   of   Decision	:	05.04.2018

 

 

 

 

Raja Ram son of Sh.Thakur Nahto, aged about 50 years, resident of Flat No.113, Dhanas, Chandigarh. 

             …..Complainant

Versus

1]  Indian Bank, SCO No.72-73, Sector 40-C, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager.

2]  Punjab National Bank, Manimajra Branch, Shop No.53, Modern Housing Complex, Manimajra, U.T., Chandigarh through its Branch Manager.

3]  Balaji Automobiles, Authorised Dealer Heromotocorp Ltd., B-31, Phase-3, Industrial Area, Near Ranbaxy Mohali, through its Manager.

   ….. Opposite Parties 

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN              PRESIDENT

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER 

                               

 

 

Argued by :- Sh.Adhiraj Thind, Adv. for complainant.

             Ms.Amita Khanna, Adv. for OP No.1.

  Sh.H.S.Bhatia, Adv. for OP No.2.

             Opposite Party NO.3 exparte. 

 

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

         Briefly stated, the complainant on 1.2.2017 purchased motorcycle make Hero Splendor+DRS for a total cost of Rs.49,623/- from Balaji Automobiles.  The complainant was also issued Form-22 and insurance of ICICI Lombard Motor Insurance through Hero Corporate Service Limited costing Rs.1815/-, apart from temporary number (Ann.C-1 colly.).  Accordingly, the complainant, issued a cheque No.428834, dated 01.02.2017 for an amount of Rs.52,500/- in the name of Balaji Automobiles from his savings Bank Account No.406862179, having sufficient balance (Ann.C-2).  However, the said cheque was dishonoured by the Opposite Party No.2 bank twice on 6.2.2017 and 7.2.2017 even though there was sufficient fund in the account.  It is averred that when the matter was enquired from Opposite Party NO.1 bank, the complainant was informed that an amount of Rs.42,800/- has been debited from his account against cheque No.428834, but the complainant asked the bank officials as to how any other amount, as mentioned in the cheque, can be debited   (Ann.C-3), but they failed to give any satisfactory reply.  It is also averred that the complainant also approached Balaji Automobiles, who gave printout of their bank statement showing that they have not received any amount against cheque No.428834 and also issued a certificate dated 28.2.2017 stating that no amount has been transferred in their account i.e. Rs.52,500/- against cheque No.428834 issued by complainant.  The complainant also moved a complaint with police, but still the Opposite Party Bank did not do the needful.  Ultimately, the complainant, on receipt of legal notice from Balaji Automobiles, deposited an amount of Rs.52,500/- in cash on 22.7.2017 (An.C-8).  It is submitted that despite several requests by the complainant, the Opposite Party Bank had not reversed the entry of wrongly debited amount in his account.  Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of OP Banks. 

 

2]       The Opposite Party NO.1/Indian Bank has filed reply and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that the cheque in question was presented by Punjab National Bank on Indian Bank for encashment of Rs.52,500/- and it got dishonoured twice on the same dates respectively when there was sufficient funds in the account, but the amount debited wrongly from the account of the complainant i.e. Rs.42800/- instead of Rs.52,500/- against cheque No.428834. It is stated that due to inadvertent clerical error and serious mistake, the amount was wrongly credited by the Punjab National Bank, Manimajra Branch, Chandigarh.  It is stated that it has not been clearly stated & explained by Punjab National Bank, Manimajra, Chandigarh that where & in whose account the amount of Rs.42800/- on 4.2.2017 has been deposited/ credited and that the balance of Rs.9700/- on 18.8.2017 has been wrongly credited instead of total amount of Rs.52,500/- which is required to be credited into the account of M/s Balaji Automobiles.  It is submitted that fault and negligence in the present case lies on the part of Punjab National Bank, Manimajra, Chandigarh.  It is also submitted that the Punjab National Bank, Manimajra, Chandigarh has committed electronic fault by making a wrong entry of credit into the account of some other individual person. It is further submitted the Indian Bank has cooperated with the complainant by calling the Punjab National Bank, Manimajra on occasions to rectify the fault.  Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegations, the Opposite Party NO.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.  

         Opposite Party No.2/Punjab National Bank has also filed reply and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that in the process of truncation in Patch No.CTO 411, some electronic error occurred due to which the cheque issued by the complainant was replaced with cheque of Rs.42,800/- and the amount has been debited in the account of complainant and credited in the account of Sh.Pahul Bains (Ann.R-1), therefore, the cheque on presentation was not paid and dishonoured.  It is stated that it is only due to the fact that during electronic processing of truncation of the cheques that the mistake has occurred which could not be traced and rectified.  It is also stated that later the amount has been tranced in the account of Sh.Pahul Bains and the amount has been paid to the complainant (Ann.R-2) and thus, the mistake which has occurred has been rectified.  It is submitted that it is incorrect that there is any fault or negligence on the part of answering Opposite Party. Denying other allegations and pleading no deficiency in service, the Opposite Party NO.2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

         Opposite Party NO.3 did not turn up despite service of notice, hence it was proceeded exparte vide order dated 4.12.2017.

 

3]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

4]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have also perused the entire record.

 

5]       The main grouse of the complainant is that though there was sufficient amount in his account, but still the Opposite Party No.2 bank dishonoured his cheque for Rs.52,500/- issued in favour of M/s Balaji Automobiles, as a result, he has been served with notice under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act and has to face humiliation, mental tension and physical harassment as well as financial loss.

 

6]       The stand of Opposite Party No.2 Bank i.e. Punjab National Bank as taken in the reply in Para No.3 that it is only due to the fact that during electronic processing of truncation of the cheques that the mistake has occurred which could not be traced and rectified.  It is stated that the electronic error had occurred due to which the cheque issued by the complainant was replaced with cheque of Rs.42,800/- and the amount has been debited in the account of complainant and credited in the account of Sh.Pahul Bains, therefore, the cheque on presentation was not paid and dishonoured.  It is claimed that later the amount has been tranced in the account of Sh.Pahul Bains and the amount has been paid to the complainant and thus, the mistake which has occurred has been rectified.

 

7]       From the above admitted facts, the deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party No.2 has been proved, which certainly has caused harassment and humiliation to the complainant.  Therefore, the complaint stands allowed against the OP No.2/Punjab National Bank.  The Opposite Party No.2 is directed to pay a composite amount of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation to the complainant for rendering deficient services as well as litigation expenses.

         This order shall be complied with by the Opposite Party No.2 within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the OP No.2 shall be liable to pay additional compensation cost of Rs.5000/- apart from above relief.

 

8]       However, the complaint qua Opposite Party NO.1 & 3 stands dismissed. 

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

5th April, 2018                                                                                                                                                                         sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

 (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER