Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/88/2020

Ajay Jagga - Complainant(s)

Versus

Karnataka Bank Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Ashok Paul Jagga & Rajan Puri

09 Mar 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/88/2020
Date of Institution	:	18/02/2020
Date of Decision	:	09/03/2023

 

Ajay Jagga, Advocate son of Late Sh.R.P.Jagga, Advocate resident of House No.231, Sector 21-A, Chandigarh.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. Karnataka Bank Ltd., Head Office at Pumpwell Circle, Kankanady, Mangalore through its Chairman and Managing Director/Executive Officer.
2. Karnataka Bank Ltd., Branch Office SCO 311, Ground Floor, Sector 38-D, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager.
3. Karnataka Bank Ltd., Branch Office SCO 2909-10, Dakshin Marg, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                

ARGUED BY	:	Sh.Ashok Paul Jagga, Counsel for Complainant.
	:	Sh.Sumeer Bector, Counsel for OPs.

Per Surjeet kaur, Member

1.      Averments are that the complainant signed a cheque No.935984 for a sum of Rs.40,000/- in the name of his daughter, but somehow the same could not be delivered to her and remained in office of complainant in house No.231, ground floor, Sector 21-A, Chandigarh. Thereafter, on 13.05.2019 the complainant received message on his registered cell phone at about 3:48 PM that his account had been debited for the sum of Rs.40,000/- on account of the aforesaid cheque. The information was surprisingly since the complainant believed the cheque was still lying in his office. Accordingly, he took up the matter with the base branch of the bank i.e., Sector 22-C and it was learnt that the same had been honoured and encashed by the non-base branch i.e., Sector 38-D Chandigarh branch. The branch in Sector 22-C Chandigarh which is the base branch also proved to be deficient in its services since it debited the account of the complainant on the advice of branch Sector 38-D, although it was well aware of the fact that under the norms Sector 38 branch could not have honoured the cheque. It is also submitted that as per the norms settled for savings banks of the banks in general and the OP bank in particular non-base branch i.e., other than the base branch the 3^rd party payments are not allowed. Despite the assurance the OP has not been able to settle the complaint in an amicable manner (Annexure C-1). The copy of the complaint submitted to SSP Chandigarh on 14.05.2019 (Annexure C-3).  The copy of the FIR dated 15.05.2019 (Annexure C-5). Hence, this present consumer complaint.
2.     OPs contested the consumer complaint, filed their written reply and stated that complainant issued cheque in the name of Ms.Aishwarya, but the same was not delivered to her and remained in his office and complaint is defective and liable to be dismissed on this score alone as no information was received by the OPs regarding the said cheque is stolen from the custody of the complainant and same should be stopped for payment. It is also submitted that the payment made after the verification received from the OP No.3, there is no violation of bank rules. It is further submitted that as per the rules the 3^rd party payment only after send the intimation to the base branch and further CCTV cameras are there as per the requirement of the bank and direction given by the RBI. On these lines, the case is sought to be defended by OPs.
3.     Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
4.     Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5.     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case.
6.     The sole grouse of the complainant through present complaint is that he signed a cheque for a sum of Rs.40,000/- in the name of his daughter but the same could not be delivered to her and remained in office of the complainant. But the same was encashed by some unknown person from the non-base branch i.e., Sector 38 branch. Hence, as per complainant the bank is deficient in providing its services as the cheque was honoured without following the proper procedure.
7.     The stand taken by the OPs is that the complainant must have given information to them regarding the loss of cheque from his custody. But no such information was ever provided by complainant to OP-Bank. So far as the payment is concerned the same was made after the verification from OP No.3. Hence, no violation of any rule.
8.     Perusal of Annexure C-6, clearly, reveals that :-

         “The above cash withdrawal at non base branches is allowed only with prior intimation and its approval by the paying branch. Cash withdrawal at non-base branch through 3^rd party is not allowed.”  

9.     And reply filed by OP attached with duly sworn affidavit reveals that the payment was made after the verification from OP No.3. We feel it was the duty of the complainant to keep his cheque in safe custody. Also in case of loss of the same, concerned branch was to be informed/intimated in advance alongwith the direction of not honouring the same.
10.     In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
11.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

			Sd/-
09/03/2023			[Pawanjit Singh]
Ls			President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur]
			Member
			Sd/-
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana]
			Member