Haryana

Ambala

CC/4/2019

Balbir Singh Jaspal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Municipal Corporation - Opp.Party(s)

G.S. Jaspal

19 Nov 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

                                                          Complaint Case No.:   4 of 2019.

                                                          Date of Institution   : 04.01.2019.

                                                          Date of decision    :  19.11.2019.

 

Balbir Singh Jaspal son of Shri Gurbux Singh, Age 59 years, resident of house No.87-A, Model Town, Ambala City.

                                                                             ……. Complainant.

                                                  Versus

 

1. Municipal Corporation, Ambala through its Commissioner.
2. Punjab National Bank, Model Town, Ambala City through its Branch Manager.
3. Indian Bank, Jagadari Gate, Ambala City through its Manager.                                                                                     ..…..Opposite Parties.

         

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member.

Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.         

                                                

Present:       Shri Jaspal Singh, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.

Shri Sandeep Sachdeva, Advocate, counsel for the OP No.1.

OP No.2 already exparte vide order dated 18.02.2019.

Shri Kavinder Chawla, Advocate, counsel for the OP No.3.    

 

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President

Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) & prayer has been made as under:-

1. To direct the OP No.1 to refund amount of Rs.28,540 alongwith interest @18% per annum from the date of deposit i.e 06.02.2018, till its realisation.
2. To direct the OP No.2 to refund amount of Rs. 345/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of debit of the amount i.e 07.03.2017 till its realization.
3. To direct the OPs to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him.
4. To direct the OPs to pay Rs.25,000/- as litigation expenses.

                                      

 

Brief facts of the case are that the complainant is having a saving account No.0521000100173118 with the OP No.2 i.e Punjab National Bank, Model Town, Ambala City. He issued a cheque bearing No.015684 dated 25.02.2017 of Rs.28,540/- to Municipal Corporation, Ambala against the house tax of H.No.87-A, Model Town, Ambala City. On 02.03.2017, the said cheque was presented by the Municipal Corporation through its bank i.e Indian Bank, Jagadhari Gate, Ambala City to the bank of complainant i.e Punjab National Bank, Ambala City for encashment. On 02.03.2017, the Punjab National Bank debited the cheque amount from his account and transferred the same in the account of Municipal Corporation. On 07.03.2019, the Municipal Corporation again presented the said cheque through Indian Bank and the same was dishonoured by the Punjab National Bank, for which it debited Rs.345/- as dishonoured charges from his account. Since, the cheque was presented second time, the Punjab National Bank was duty bound to intimate the Indian Bank that the cheque in question was already encashed. The Punjab National Bank illegally and arbitrarily debited Rs.345/- from his account. On 06.02.2018, the official of Municipal Corporation intimated the complainant, regarding the dishonour of cheque. He visited the office of OP No.1, there its official handed over him the dishonoured cheque and pressurized to deposit the amount of the cheque of Rs.28,540/-. He just to save his reputation deposited Rs.28,540/- in cash and officials of Municipal Corporation handed over the original cheque in question to him. OP No.1 had received Rs.28,540/- twice as house tax from him. Firstly, vide cheque No.0156684 dated 25.02.2017, which was encashed on 02.03.2017 and secondly, in cash vide receipt dated 06.02.2018, with the plea that the cheque got dishonoured. OP No.1 even after receiving the payment of cheque amount on 02.03.2017, again presented the said cheque through OP No.3 and the same was dishonoured with the remarks “Kindly contract Drawer/Drawee Bank”. He enquired from the officials of the Municipal Corporation that why they had not informed regarding the dishonour of cheque for last one year but they had failed to give satisfactory reply. He requested several times to the OP No.1 to refund Rs.28,540/- and to the OP No.2 to credit Rs.345/- in his account. The act of the OPs, referred to above, forced the complainant to pay house tax of Rs.28,540/- twice and Rs.345/- on account of dishonour of cheque, amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                Upon notice, OP No.1 appeared through counsel and filed written version and raised preliminary objections regarding maintainability; has not come to this Fourm with clean hands and jurisdiction. On merits, it is stated that the complainant himself has admitted this fact that the cheque issued by him was dishonoured. The official of OP No.1 asked the complainant to deposit the amount of the dishonoured cheque. When, the complainant has received the original cheque from the office of MC Ambala, then how it can be said that the office of the MC has received the amount twice.  No bank release the payment without original cheque and when the original cheque is with the complainant then his entire claim is false and baseless. The complainant wants to take the undue advantage of some wrong entries, which has somehow come into his notice. The OP No.1 has not committed any deficiency in service, thus the complaint filed against it, deserves dismissal with costs.

                   Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of the OP No.2 before this Forum, therefore, it was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 18.02.2019.

                   Upon notice, OP No.3 appeared through counsel and filed written version and raised preliminary objections regarding maintainability; jurisdiction and cause of action. On merits, it is stated that the OP No.1 is having account with the bank. The cheque was presented to the branch office of OP No.2 for its clearance. Rest of the allegations levelled by the complainant are denied for lack of knowledge and prayed that the present complaint filed against it  may be dismissed with costs. 

3.                The learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of complainant as Annexure CA alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-5 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant. On the other hand, authorized representative for OP No.1 and tendered documents as Annexure OP1/1 to OP1/3 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.1. The learned counsel for the OP No.3 has not filed any evidence, rather made a statement that the written version filed by the OP No.3, may be read as evidence of the OP No.3 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.3.

4.                We have heard the learned counsel for parties and have carefully gone through the case file.     

5.                From the copy of  passbook issued by Punjab National Bank i.e OP No.2, Annexure C-2, it is evident that on 02.03.2017, an amount of Rs.28,540 was debited from the account of the complainant against the cheque bearing No.15684, drawn in favour of EO Municipal Committee. From the statement of account of EO Municipal Committee issued by Indian Bank i.e OP No.3, (Annexure OP1/1), it is apparent that on 02.03.2017, the amount of Rs.28,540 was credited into the account of the EO Municipal Committee by way of cheque through clearing. Inspite of that the cheque in question was returned by the OP No.3 to the Municipal Committee i.e OP No.1 vide return Memo, Annexure C-4. Once, the amount of Rs.28,540/- was debited from the account of the complainant & the same was credited in the account of the OP No.1, then there was no occasion for the OP No.3 to issue a Return Memo to the OP No.1 & the OP No.2 had no reason to debit an amount of Rs.345/- from the account of the complainant as dishonour charges. The OP No.1 was also wrong to receive the amount of Rs.28,540/- again in cash as house tax from the complainant. Taking all this facts and circumstances into consideration, we do not hesitate to conclude that all the OPs have committed deficiency in service & we are of the opinion that OP No.1 is liable to refund the amount of Rs.28,540/- which it had received from the complainant on 06.02.2018, along with interest. It is pertinent to mention here that from the perusal of the copy of the passbook, (Annexure C-2), it is evident that the OP No.2 had credited the amount of Rs.345/-, on 10.03.2017, which was wrongly debited from his account as dishonour charges. Thus, there is no need to issue any directions to the OP No.2 for refund of the amount of Rs.345/- as prayed for by the complainant. However, this fact cannot be ignored that due to the act of all the OPs, as referred to above the complainant has suffered a lot of mental agony and physical harassment. Therefore, they are liable to compensate the complainant on this account. There are also liable to pay the litigation expenses to the complainant.

6.                In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby allow the present complaint and direct the OPs as under:-

 

          (i)      OP No.1 is directed to refund to the complainant the amount of                            Rs.28,540/- along with interest @ 7% per annum w.e.f                               06.02.2018, (the date on which the complainant deposited the                     amount of Rs.28,540/- in cash with it), till its realisation.

          (ii)     OPs are jointly and severally are directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as                      compensation to the complainant for the mental                                          agony & physical harassment suffered by him and to pay                                 Rs.3,000/- litigation expenses.

 

                    The OPs are further directed that the awarded amount be paid within 30 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order, failing which the amount mentioned at serial No.(i) shall carry penal interest @ 9% per annum instead of @ 7% per annum and the amount mentioned at serial no.(ii) shall carry interest @ 9% till realisation.  Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced on :19.11.2019.

 

                     

          (Vinod Kumar Sharma)            (Ruby Sharma)     (Neena Sandhu)

              Member                                  Member             President