Delhi

North East

CC/89/2018

Shri Rajendra Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manager, Punjab National Bank - Opp.Party(s)

18 Dec 2019

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No.  89/18

 

In the matter of:

 

	Shri Rajender Singh S/o Shri Megh Singh R/o- 1-26/1, Gali No. 10, I-Block Brahampuri, Delhi	Complainant
	Versus
	Branch Manager Panjab National Bank Ghonda Branch, Yamuna Vihar Delhi-110053	Opposite Party

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:       JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:               DATE OF DECISION      :

08.05.2018 18.12.2019 18.12.2019

 

N.K. Sharma, President

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

Order passed by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

ORDER

1. Grievance of the complainant pertains to dishonor of cheque Numbers 053770 dated 19.04.2018 of Rs. 30,000/- which was issued by the complainant in favour of one Mr. Pawan Kumar by OP in his capacity of being a savings bank account holder of OP vide account No. 4172000100071621 maintained by him with OP and knowledge about the said dishonor / return of cheque was received by the complainant on his mobile which number was linked with his account. On presentation of the said cheque by Pawan Kumar in his bank account held with ICICI Bank, the same was returned by OP vide return memo dated 21.04.2018 with the reason ‘Kindly Contact Drawer/Drawee Bank and please present again’. For the said dishonored cheque, OP deducted Rs. 354/- from the complainant’s account maintained with it. Due to dishonor of the cheque, the beneficiary thereof i.e. Mr. Pawan sent offensive whatsapp messages to the complainant demanding immediate cash payment. Therefore the complainant had to pay the cheque amount of Rs. 30,000/- in cash to Pawan Kumar on 26.04.2018 on receiving the returned cheque with memo on the said date. Complainant further submitted that on checking his account balance, it was found that he had sufficient balance in his account to the tune of Rs. 669041/- as on 09.04.2018 and OP had deducted Rs. 354/- illegally and out of sheer negligence. When the complainant approached OP to return / refund the wrongfully deducted amount and demanded explanation for dishonor of the subject cheque, OP never gave any satisfactory reply nor refunded the said amount. Lastly, complainant issued legal notice dated 27.04.2018 to OP demanding compensation for harassment and for illegal and negligent conduct of the OP for having dishonored the cheque when complainant had given assurance to Pawan Kumar that the said cheque will be honored on the presentation but the said legal notice was un-responded to. Therefore the complainant was compelled to file the present complaint against the OP praying for issuance of directions against it to pay compensation of Rs. 80,000/- towards financial, mental and physical harassment, Rs. 19,500/- towards punitive damages and to refund Rs. 354/- illegally deducted from his account.

Complainant has attached copy of cheque in question with return memo issued by OP alongwith photographs of mobile screen shot of message received on 21.04.2018 for return of the cheque, copy of whatsapp messages screen shot exchanged between complainant and Pawan Kumar, copy of passbook entry of complainant’s account maintained with OP highlighting the dishonored cheque on 21.04.2018 against deduction of Rs. 354/- for cheque, copy of acknowledgment signed by Pawan Kumar dated 26.04.2018 for receipt of Rs. 30,000/- in cash from complainant and copy of legal notice dated 27.04.2018 by complainant to OP.

2. Notice was issued to the OP on 16.05.2018. OP entered appearance and filed written statement vide which it took the preliminary objection that the complainant has not updated his PAN number in the account maintained with OP as per mandatory requirement / directions issued by RBI dated 15.12.2016 under Section 67 which mandates that bank has to obtain and verify the PAN number of its customers while undertaken transactions as per provisions of Income Tax Rule 114B. On merits OP resisted the complaint while admitting the dishonor of cheque in question that it was due to sole negligence of the complainant for not having complied with mandatory guidelines of RBI that the subject cheque were returned by OP and never cared to know the reason behind unpaid cheque but alleged negligence on its part. OP submitted that vide internal e-mail dated 30.06.2018 from Delhi CDPC to its Ghonda Road Branch, the cheque number 53770 and 830332 presented on 213.04.2018 and 22.04.2018 were returned due to reason ‘PAN number not validated’. OP submitted that all transaction related to draft or cheque are presented by third party in their respective home branch and images of respective instrument gets reflected in the system of Centralized Draft Processing Unit (CDPC) which automatically generates the details of the concerned account and after verification of the details of account holder, the system credit the account or declines the same and there is no manual operation of the said mechanism. Therefore no negligence can be attributed against OP. Lastly OP submitted that in view of its Operations Division Circular Number 41/2016 dated 20.12.2016, it is mandated that no debit transaction, transfer or otherwise shall be allowed in accounts which do not comply with the RBI requirements. Therefore OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint on grounds of defence so taken. OP has attached copy of RBI Circular dated 15.12.2016, copy of internal e-mail dated 30.06.2018 exchanged between Delhi CDPC and OP branch and copy of OP operation Division Circular No. 41/2016 dated 20.12.2016.
3. Rejoinder in rebuttal to the defence taken by OP was filed by complainant and submitted that he has always complied with RBI guidelines and got his PAN card and Aadhar Card linked with his savings bank account maintained with OP. The internal e-mail dated 30.06.2018 relied upon by OP was never sent to the complainant Further complainant submitted that in none of the documents relied upon by OP is there a mention of any direction that when an already PAN and Aadhar linked account has to again get its KYC updated and that CDPU is an internal bank matter. The complainant urged for relief claimed.
4. Evidence by way of affidavit were filed by both parties in reassertion / reemphasis of their respective grievance/ defence and exhibited respective documents relied by both parties.
5. Written arguments were filed by both parties in brief summary of their respective stands.
6. We have heard the rival contention of both parties and have perused the documentary evidence placed on record.

It is not in dispute that the subject cheque was returned dishonored by OP on the given date vide return memo despite complainant having sufficient balance in his account held with it.However, the return memo merely directed the beneficiary to contact the drawer i.e. the complainant. The mobile message sent by OP to the complainant also does not contain any information of KYC non updation of his account due to which the said cheque was returned. That apart, from the passbook entry placed on record by the complainant, a self cheque was honored by OP in April 2018 before the cheque in question was dishonored in April 2018. OP was put to specific question during the course of oral arguments as to when and how they had intimated to the complainant about KYC non updation to which OP had no cogent reply or records. The OP did not even care to inform the complainant about the alleged non updation vide any reply to his legal notice. The matter is well settled by the decision of Hon'ble National Commission in ICICI Bank Vs Shri Rajendra Kumar Aggarwal in RP No. 532/2012 decided on 02.04.2014 in which it was held that dishonor of cheque was absolutely gross deficiency of service by the bank when the account holder had sufficient funds in his account at that time. The said view has been further reiterated by the Hon'ble National Commission in Canara Bank Vs Sanjoy Mitra IV (2016) CPJ 260 (NC) and HDFC Bank Ltd Vs Kailash Nath Aggarwal I (2016) CPJ 684 (NC).

After due consideration of the facts before us, we find clear negligence and deficiency on the part of OP being a service provider to the complainant for dishonoring the cheque and therefore the complainant is entitled to relief for this negligent discharge is service. We therefore are of the view that complainant is entitled to get sufficient and reasonable damages including punitive damages as provided under Section 14 (1)(d) which shall not only serve the purpose of recompensing the sufferer but also aim at bringing about a qualitative change in the attitude of the service provider in a case of proven deficiency as was held in a decision under CPA 1986 by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 767 of 2000 titled Charan Singh Vs Healing Touch Hospital decided on 20.09.2000. The Hon'ble National Commission in Bihar State Sugar Corporation Ltd Vs SBI in OP number 284/1997 decided on 05.12.2006 observed inter alia that for such wrongful dishonored of cheque, a common man faces harassment by public authorities and its undesirable functioning which is not legally permissible in a Socialist Democratic Republic like India which was succinctly discussed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Lucknow Development Authority Vs M. K. Gupta (1994) 1 SCC 243 in which the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that an ordinary citizen being harassed by public authority often succumbs to pressure of undesirable functioning in offices and therefore award of compensation satisfies him.

We therefore, being guided by the pearls of wisdom of Hon’ble Apex Court and Hon'ble National Commission in similar cases of cheque dishonor by banks allow the present complaint with directions to the OP to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- as compensation for mental and physical harassment and Rs. 2,000/- as punitive damages to the complainant for wrongly dishonoring validly endorsed cheque of the complainant and also to refund Rs. 354/- towards cheque bouncing charges to the complainant.Let the order be complied with OP within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order. 

7.  Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
8.   File be consigned to record room.
9.   Announced on  18.12.2019

 

(N.K. Sharma)     President

(Sonica Mehrotra)  Member