Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/92/2023

AJAY JAGGA ADVOCATE - Complainant(s)

Versus

KARNATAKA BANK - Opp.Party(s)

ASHOK PAUL JAGGA ADVOCATE

06 Dec 2023

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T. CHANDIGARH

[Additional Bench]

 

Appeal No.	:	A/92/2023
Date  of  Institution	:	12/05/2023
Date   of   Decision	:	06/12/2023

 

 

 

 

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

 

….Appellant

Vs.

 

1.     Karnataka Bank Limited, Head Office at Pumpwell Circle, Kankanady, Mangalore, through its Chairman and Managing Director/Executive Officer.

 

2.     Karnataka Bank Limited, Branch Office SCO 311, Ground Floor, Sector 38-D, Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager.

 

3.     Karnataka Bank Limited, Branch Office SCO 2909-10, Dakshin Marg, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager.

…. Respondents

 

BEFORE: MRS. PADMA PANDEY   PRESIDING MEMBER

                PREETINDER SINGH      MEMBER

 

 

PRESENT	:	Sh. Ashok Paul Jagga, Advocate for the Appellant.
		Sh. Sumeer Bector, Advocate for the Respondents alongwith
		Sh. Navtej Sharma, Branch Manager, Karnataka Bank Ltd., Sec.38, Chd.

 

PER PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER

 

1.         This appeal is directed against the order dated 09.03.2023, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh (for brevity hereinafter to be referred as “the Ld. Lower Commission”), vide which, it dismissed the Consumer Complaint bearing no.CC/88/2020, by passing the following order: -

“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.”

 

2.         For the convenience, the parties are being referred to, in the instant Appeal, as position held in Consumer Complaint before the Ld. Lower Commission.

 

3.         Before the Ld. Lower Commission, it was the case of the Complainant that he signed a Cheque No.935984 for a sum of ₹40,000/- in the name of his daughter, but somehow the same could not be delivered to her and remained in his office. 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 ₹40,000/- on account of the aforesaid cheque. The information was surprising to the Complainant since he 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. The Complainant claimed that as per the norms the non-base branch could not have honoured the cheque through third party. The Complainant approached the Opposite Parties on several occasions, but neither they resolved the matter nor the amount refunded to him. Hence, the aforesaid Consumer Complaint was filed before the Ld. Lower Commission, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.

 

4.         In the reply filed before the Ld. Lower Commission, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, Opposite Parties pleaded that the complaint is defective and liable to be dismissed on the ground that no information was received by them from the Complainant regarding the disputed cheque being stolen from his custody and that the same should be stopped for payment. It was also pleaded that the payment was made after verification received from the Opposite Party No.3 and thus, there was no violation of Bank Rules. Denying all other allegations and pleading no deficiency in service, the Opposite Parties prayed for dismissal of the Complaint.

 

5.         On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence adduced on the record, Ld. Lower Commission dismissed the Complaint of the Complainant as noticed in the opening para of this order.  

 

6.         Aggrieved against the aforesaid order passed by the Ld. Lower Commission, the instant Appeal has been filed by the Appellant/Complainant.
7.         We have heard the Learned Counsel for the Parties and have gone through the evidence and record of the case with utmost care.

 

8.         It is the case of the Appellant/Complainant that the Ld. Lower Commission while passing the impugned order has failed to appreciate the documentary evidence available on record, which resulted into perverse finding.  Learned Counsel for the Appellant/ Complainant has argued that the findings recorded by the Ld. Lower Commission in Para No.7 to 10 of the impugned order that the Complainant has not informed the branch with regard to the theft of the cheque nor requested for stop payment and on the other hand the Respondent No.2 acted correctly while making the payment to third party on non-base branch after verification from the Respondent No.3, are based on wrong appreciation of the factual matrix as well as the evidence on record.

 

9.         To buttress his arguments, Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Complainant relied upon Annexure C-6 to the Complaint. After having perused the said document meticulously along with other material available on record, this Bench is satisfied that the Ld. Lower Commission has wrongly held that there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Parties. The order impugned before us shows, the Ld. Lower Commission did not appreciate Annexure R-6 in the Complaint in its true perspective (Pg. No.28 of the paper-book), which contained the manner of dealing with cash withdrawals at base and non-base branches, which does not remotely dependent upon the eventuality of furnishing of any intimation about loss of cheque, theft thereof or stop payment, as the case may be. In other words, it deals with the competence and jurisdiction of the non-base and base branch. Per this document, the non-base branch is without jurisdiction to honour a cash withdrawal by a third party and the same is evident from the words in the last line of the document which reads “Cash withdrawal at non-base branch through third party is not allowed”. This in our concerted opinion amounts to a complete bar against a non-base branch to honour the cash withdrawal cheque in favour of third party irrespective of any action on the part of the customer to furnish any information to the said branch. The preceding line stipulates “the above cash withdrawal at non-base branches is allowed only with prior intimation and its approval by the paying branch”. The said condition implies the cash withdrawal by a customer himself i.e. not a third party. This does not denote that with the verification by base branch, the cash withdrawal in favour of third party is permissible from non-base branch with verification by base branch.  Thus, the Ld. Lower Commission while passing the impugned order has failed to take note of this vital aspect and has wrongly held that there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Parties.

 

10.         This Commission, therefore, is of the opinion that the impugned order passed by the Ld. District Commission is not based on the correct appreciation of the material on record. Resultantly, the present appeal filed by the Appellant/Complainant stands accepted. The order of the Ld. Lower Commission is set-aside and Respondents/Opposite Parties, are, jointly & severally, directed as under:-

 

(i)     To refund the cheque amount of ₹40,000/- to the Appellant/Complainant along with interest @6% p.a. from 13.05.2019, till realization.

 

        (ii)    To pay ₹10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment to the Appellant/complainant.

 

        (iii)   To pay ₹10,000/- as costs of litigation.

 

11.         The above order shall be complied with by the Opposite Parties, within thirty days from today, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the Complaint, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above. 

 

12.         No other point was urged by the Counsel for the Parties.

 

13.         All the pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed off accordingly.

 

14.         Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

 

15.         The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced

06^th December,2023                                                                   

                                         Sd/-                         

                                                                (PADMA PANDEY)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(PREETINDER SINGH)

MEMBER

“Dutt”