BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.
Consumer Complaint No. 493 of 2015
Date of Institution: 11.8.2015
Date of Decision :8.04.2016
Mr. Surinder Singh Batra, Advocate R/o 13-C, Rani Ka Bagh, Amritsar
Complainant
Versus
- Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., through its Chairman/Managing Director/Principal Officer having its Branch Office at Ebony Building, Mall Road, Amritsar through its Branch Manager
- Reserve Bank of India, S.B.S.Marg, Mumbai – 400001 through its Governor
- State Bank of Patiala having its branch office at The Mall, Amritsar through its Branch Manager
Opposite Parties
Complaint under section 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Present: For the Complainant : Sh.Deepinder Singh,Advocate
For the Opposite Parties : Ex-parte
Quorum
Sh.S.S.Panesar, President
Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member
Sh. Anoop Sharma, Member
Order dictated by:
Sh.S.S. Panesar, President.
1. Surinder Singh Batra,Advocate has filed the instant complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date) is a practicing lawyer . Complainant issued cheque No. 461527 dated 27.5.2015 for an amount of Rs. 800/- in favour of H.T. Media, who presented the said cheque to opposite party No.1 for clearance. However, said cheque was bounced by the said opposite party despite the fact that the complainant had sufficient balance in his account. The complainant is the consumer as provided under the Act and is competent to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum. The complainant paid for the subscription of newspaper The Hindustan Times to the H.T. Media a cheque of Rs. 800/- having No. 461527 dated 27.5.2015 drawn on his bank State Bank of Patiala. The said H.T. Media presented the cheque in dispute to opposite party No.2 and opposite party without getting the effects cleared issued the memo of bouncing of the cheque with the remarks “insufficient funds” and further charged the bouncing charges of Rs. 114/- inspite of the fact that the complainant was having an amount of around four lac rupees in credit in his account at the relevant time. The aforesaid acts of the opposite parties in bouncing the cheque of the complainant and further deducting cheque bouncing charges to the tune of Rs. 114/- are acts of deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and mal-practice which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. This act has caused a lot of mental tension, agony and harassment ; besides financial loss and loss of reputation to the complainant for which the opposite party is liable to pay the compensation of Rs. 90000/- to the complainant. Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice opposite parties No.1 & 3 appeared and filed separate written statements to contest the claim of the complainant.
3. In its written statement, opposite party No.1 took certain preliminary objections inter alia that that in terms of section 2(d) of Consumer Protection Act, the complainant is not a consumer nor the opposite party is service provider to the complainant ; Rather opposite party is extending this facility to general public free of cost to some extent and without any profit motive ; The complainant does not fall within the definition of consumer. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed ; That the complaint is based on erroneous submissions and on conjectures. Infact the complaint is liable to be rejected by this Forum under the exercise of powers vested under section 26 of the consumer Protection Act, 1986 as the complainant has intentionally and deliberately concealed the material and relevant facts from this Forum ; That the complaint is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary party i.e. for not making State Bank of Patiala drawee bank as party to the present complaint ; That the present complaint is without any cause of action against the opposite party and is liable to be dismissed. On merits , it is stated that it is a matter of record that H.T. Media presented a cheque bearing No. 461527 dated 27.5.2015 for Rs. 800/- to be given credit into the account of H.T. Media post clearance . The said cheque was drawn upon State Bank of Patiala, Amritsar Mall Road branch account No. 65046997531. The said cheque was presented to said bank for clearance and payment but the said cheque was returned back by the banker of the complainant on the ground of “insufficient funds”. The cheque was presented for clearance as per banking process can be confirmed from outward Presentment Report of Reserve Bank of India June 2,2015 and the said fact can also be confirmed from inward return report of Reserve Bank of India for June 3,2015. As per the report of Reserve Bank of India the said cheque was returned with the reason code 01 which means cheque is returned because of insufficient fund in the account. Other facts narrated in the complaint have also been specifically denied.
4. In its written statement, opposite party No.3 also took certain preliminary objections therein inter alia that the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable against the replying opposite party. It is submitted here that as per the record of opposite party No.2, no any alleged cheque vide No. 461527 dated 27.2.2015 for an amount of Rs. 800/- was received for clearance from Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.i.e. opposite party No.1 to the replying opposite party, so question of returning back the cheque as dishonoured, does not arise ; That no cause of action accrued against opposite party No.2 as stated above, hence the same is liable to be dismissed on this score alone. On merits , facts narrated in the complaint have been denied . It is denied for want of knowledge that complainant paid any subscription of newspaper Hindustan Times to H.T. Media a cheque of Rs. 800/- bearing No. 461527 dated 27.5.2015 drawn on his banker i.e. State Bank of Patiala, Mall Road, Amritsar. It is submitted that as per record of the bank, no any alleged cheque had come for clearing from the opposite party No.1 neither any such instructions were passed regarding insufficient funds to the account of the complainant lying with replying opposite party bank to opposite party No.1 nor any cheques to the tune of Rs.114/- have been deducted from the account of the complainant. There is no any act of deficiency of service, unfair trade practice and mal-practice on the part of replying opposite party and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.
5. In its bid to prove the case, complainant Surinder singh Batra,Advocate made into the witness box as his own witness as CW1 and tendered his duly sworn affidavit Ex.C-1, besides tendering copies of the documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-4 and closed his evidence.
6. However, during the pendency of the complaint, all opposite parties did not opt to appear and contest the complaint and they were ordered to be proceeded against ex-parte.
7. The evidence adduced by the complainant has gone unrebutted on record. The complainant has produced copy of the cheque Ex.C-2 for an amount of Rs. 800/-, which bounced back on account of allegedly “insufficient funds”. Whereas as per the copy of the statement of account Ex.C-4, an amount of more than Rs. 4 lac were in credit in the account of the complainant at the relevant time. There is no memo of the banker of the complainant to the effect that the cheque has been bounced on account of “insufficient funds” at the relevant time. Rather the memo Ex.C-3 clearly shows that the said memo has been issued by opposite party No.1 on its own. Opposite party No.1 could not bounce back the cheque of the complainant on its own accord. It was incumbent upon them to have sent the cheque in dispute for clearing to the banker of the complainant. But, however, for the reasons best known to the opposite party No.1, no such procedure was adopted. It amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.1 . It is the case of the complainant that an amount of Rs. 114/- has been illegally deducted as cheque bounce charges from his account . Besides that the complainant has suffered in reputation. The complainant is a practicing lawyer and must have been commanding good respect in the society.
8. From the appraisal of the evidence on record, it becomes evident that the complainant has been able to prove his case to the hilt. Not only that the complainant is entitled to refund of Rs. 114/- illegally deducted from his account as cheque bouncing charges. The complainant is also entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 5000/- from opposite party No.1. The complaint succeeds accordingly. However, the complaint is ordered to be dismissed against opposite parties No.2 & 3. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order ; failing which , the amount awarded shall carry interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of order until full and final recovery . Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
Announced in Open Forum
Dated : 8.4.2016
/R/ ( S.S.Panesar )
President
( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) (Anoop Sharma)
Member Member
