Haryana

Karnal

CC/279/2016

Sunil Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Indian Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Deepak Arya

06 Nov 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL. 

                                                     Complaint No. 279 of 2016

                                                    Date of instt.14.09.2016

                                                     Date of decision 06.11.2017

 

Sunil Kumar son of Shri Karam Singh resident village Kalampur, tehsil and District Karnal.

                                                                                 ……..Complainant.

                                        Versus.

Indian Bank through its Manager, Kachhwa Branch, situated at village Kachhwa, District Karnal.

 

                                                                      ..…Opposite Party.

 

 Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

 

Before     Sh. Jagmal Singh……….President.

                Ms. Veena Rani………Member

                Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:   Sh. Deepak Arya Advocate for the complainant.

                 Sh. A.K.Vohra Advocate for opposite party.

                 

       

                (JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT)

 

 ORDER:

 

                This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, on the averments that he is consumer of OP and having saving account with OP since long vide account no.6200359300. On 19.2.2016 his cheque book in which 2/3 cheques were signed was lost somewhere. At that time one person of his village namely Ranjeet quarreled with him, who was not having cordial relation with him due to political rivalry in village. He moved a written complaint to OP on 19.2.2016 in that regard and also moved a complaint to police regarding the said quarrel. Then he was shocked to receive summon/notice under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act of Rs.2,50,000/-on behalf of said person Ranjeet Regarding the same which was lost and the OP has also dishonored/bounced the same after its presentation due to reason insufficient fund vide bank of dated 5.3.2016 issued by OP presented by said Ranjeet in complaint. He was shocked to see that once a complaint has been made by him regarding cheque book lost to the OP and how the bank can entertain that cheque for its encashment against which a written complaint already made. Further, the OP allowed the said cheque in the complainant’s account and dishonoured the same for funds insufficient and not due to the lost complaint. At the time of presentation of said cheque the OP never intimate him. Thus, all the acts and conduct on the part of the OP is gross negligence, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

2.             Notice of this complaint was given to OP, who appeared and filed written statement raising preliminary objection with regard to maintainability; cause of action; not served any legal notice and concealments of material facts. The true facts are that the complaint is nothing but an afterthought device to harm and harass the OP as the complaint is the outcome of personal grudge of the complainant with Ranjeet Singh son of Aram Jawari to whom the complainant issued the said cheque knowing fully well that there is paucity of the funds in his account. To save his skin from the complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act titled as Ranjeet Singh Vs. Sunil Kumar, filed the present complaint with the purpose to harass and harm the OP on the basis of concocted and false story. The complainant has not produced the copy of DDR regarding misplacement of his cheque book inspite of repeated requests made by the OP. It has further been submitted that the complainant issued cheque in favour of Ranjeet Singh but the said cheque was dishonoured due to paucity of funds in his account by the clearing house Karnal, so fabricated story is made out in the complaint. Hence there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OP and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C10 and closed the evidence on 22.5.2017

4.             On the other hand, OP tendered into evidence affidavit of Priyanka Kumari Ex.O1 and documents Ex.O2 to Ex.O4 and closed the evidence on 18.9.2017.

5.             We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

6.             According to the complainant on 19.2.2016 one co-villager of the complainant namely Ranjeet Singh has quarreled with him, who was not having cordial relation with him due to political rivalry in village and in that quarrel his blank cheque book having some signed cheques was lost. The complainant moved written complaint to OP on 19.2.2016 and further the complainant also moved complaint to the police regarding the said quarrel. To prove the same, the complainant produced on the file, copy of application dated 19.2.2016 as Ex.C-9. In Ex.C-9, the account number of the complainant mentioned as account no.6200359300 and at sr. no.8 it is mentioned that cheque book has been lost, that be closed and account be made non cheque. Further the complainant has also placed on the file Ex.C-8 which is copy obatained by the complainant under RTI from OP, where it is mentioned in Annexure-1 (Annexure-1 to CO:CSC:RTI:1158: 2016-2017)  at sr. no.3 that on receipt of the application on loss of cheque book, the branch has changed account type as non cheque book account. So from Ex.C-8 and Ex.C-9, it is clear that the complainant made application regarding loss of his cheque book to the OP on 19.2.2016 and OP has changed his account as non-cheque book account.

7.             It is admitted case of the OP that one Ranjeet Singh of the village of complainant has present a cheque of the complainant for an amount of Rs.2,70,000/- and the same was dishonoured by the OP on 5.3.2016 on the ground of “Fund insufficient” and the copy Return memo is Ex.C-3 placed on the file by the complainant. So from the above facts it is clear that even after making the account of the complainant as “non cheque book account” on 19.2.2016, the OP dishonoured the cheque on the ground the “Funds insufficient” instead stopping the payment of cheque on the ground that the account is  non cheque book account.

8.             As the cheque was dishonoured due to “Fund Insufficient” in the account of the complainant, so the said Ranjeet Singh got on opportunity to file complaint against the complainant and by taking the benefit of the same, he filed a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act against the complainant in the court of Ld. Judicial Magistrate, Karnal and this fact is clear from documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-4. In the said complaint, the complainant has been summoned as accused.

9.             The OP alleged that knowingly the complainant issued the cheque in favour of Ranjeet Singh, but the OP has not produced any evidence on the file to prove that the cheque was issued to said Ranjeet Singh by the complainant. On the other hand, the complainant informed the OP about the loss of cheque on 19.2.2016 and the OP made the account of complainant as non cheque book account and inspite of that the OP has dishonoured the cheque on 5.3.2016 on the grant of “Fund insufficient” only whereas the same should have been dishonoured/stopped on the ground also that the account is non cheque book account. On the query by this Forum that why the cheque was not dishonoured being non cheque book account, the ld. Counsel for the OP stated that this had happened due to mistake. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that it is not a mistake rather it is a gross negligence on the part of the OP. Inspite of making complaints to the OP and to the police on 19.2.2016, the complainant is facing prosecution due to the gross negligence of the OP. If the OP dishonoured the cheque being non cheque book account, then there may be no prosecution of the complainant for dishonouring the cheque. So, in these circumstances, we are of the considered view that there was a gross negligence on the part of the OP and the interest of justice will met, if we allowed compensation equal to the amount of the cheque i.e.Rs.2,70,000/- for which the complainant is facing prosecution.

10.           Thus, as a sequel to the foregoing reasons, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite party to pay Rs.2,70,000/- as compensation to the complainant. No order as to costs. The order will be complied with within 30 days failing which the complainant is entitled interest @ 8% per annum from the date of order till its realization. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 06.11.2017

                                                                  

                                                                  President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                        Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

 

                        (Veena Rani)       (Anil Sharma)

                          Member                Member