Haryana

StateCommission

A/265/2015

STATE BANK OF INDIA - Complainant(s)

Versus

PAWAN KUMAR - Opp.Party(s)

S.K.GUPTA

08 Jul 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :       265 of 2015

Date of Institution:       19.03.2015

Date of Decision :        08.07.2015

 

1.     State Bank of India, SCO No.398, Sector 20, Panchkula through its Branch Manager.

2.     Deputy General Manager, State Bank of India IIIrd Floor, G Block, Synergy Building Behind National Stock Exchange, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051.

                                      Appellants-Opposite Parties

Versus

 

Shri Pawan Kumar s/o Sh. Jagdish Chand Sharma, Resident of Village Bir Ghaghar, Chandimandir, District Panchkula.

                                      Respondent-Complainant

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                                                                                                                                         

Present:               Shri S.K. Gupta, Advocate for appellants.

                             Shri Dinesh Saini, Advocate for respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

State Bank of India through its Branch Manager, Panchkula and Deputy General Manager, State Bank of India, Mumbai have filed the present appeal against the order dated February 6^th, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short ‘District Forum’), Panchkula. For ready reference, the operative part of the order is reproduced as under:-

“13.   We would, accordingly allow this complaint and order that:-    

1. The Ops shall refund the amount of Rs.102/- which they had deducted from the account of the complainant.
2. To pay a sum olf Rs.50,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony, harassment and humiliation caused to the complainant by the entertainment of a time barred cheque and
3. To pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as the cost of litigation.”

2.      Pawan Kumar-complainant (respondent herein) was maintaining saving account No.31058607531 with State Bank of India (SBI), Sector-20, Panchkula-Opposite Party No.1.  In discharge of his liabilities, he issued a cheque No.860732 dated February 2^nd, 2014 in favour of Smt. Sheetal Babbar for Rs.56,000/-, who presented the cheque to her banker (Union Bank of India) for collection of the amount in the month of July, 2014. The drawee bank, that is, S.B.I. dishonoured the cheque with the remarks “Insufficient Funds”. The appellants-opposite parties deducted an amount of Rs.102/- from the account of the complainant on account of dishonour charges of the cheque. Sheetal Babbar filed complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against complainant for dishonour of cheque.

3.      The complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 averring that the limitation of the cheque was three months from the date of its issue but since the cheque was presented for collection of the amount in the month of July, 2014, the bank should have returned the cheque with the remarks “stale cheque”.

4.      The opposite parties contested the complaint by filing reply. It was stated that complainant’s case pertained to cheque return transaction and in such type of matters, there remains number of reasons for the dishonour of the cheque. While processing for the payments, one or more reasons can be mentioned in case the cheque is being returned. In the instant case, the cheque was returned with the remarks of “Insufficient Funds” and “Stale Cheque” was also one of the reasons for its dishonour. The amount of Rs.102/- was debited from complainant’s account as per the inbuilt system of the banking procedures and transactions. It was prayed that the complaint merited dismissal.

5.      On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence available on the record, the District Forum accepted the complaint and issued direction to the opposite parties as detailed in paragraph No.1 of this order.

6.      Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the cheque was returned with the remarks of “Insufficient Funds” and “Stale Cheque” was also one of the reasons for its dishonour. The amount of Rs.102/- was debited from complainant’s account as per the inbuilt system of the banking procedures and transactions. The cheque was received by the opposite parties from Union Bank of India where the cheque was presented by Sheetal Babbar for collection of the amount and it was for the said bank not to entertain the said cheque and return the same to Sheetal Bbbar. More so, from the date of issuance of the cheque till the date of its dishonour, sufficient amount was never found in complainant’s account.

7.      Learned counsel for appellants-opposite parties, has placed on the file the ‘Statement of account’ (Annexure A-2) pertaining to complainant’s account. A perusal of Annexure A-2 shows that right from the date of issue of cheque, the complainant has never maintained balance equivalent to cheque amount of Rs.56,000/-. As per complainant, he issued cheque on 2^nd February, 2014 and it was dishonoured on 23^rd July, 2014. On 02.02.2014, the balance was only Rs.1227/- and on 23.07.2014, the balance was of Rs.243/-. Even during the intervening period, there has never been balance of Rs.56,000/- so as to honour the cheque.

8.      In view of the above, it establishes that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the appellants-opposite parties. The District Forum fell in error in allowing the complaint. The impugned order cannot sustain.

9.      Hence, the appeal is accepted, the impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.

10.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellants-opposite parties against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced 08.07.2015

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL