STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA
Date of Institution: 03.05.2017
Date of final hearing: 16.05.2023
Date of pronouncement: 20.07.2023
First Appeal No.568 of 2017
IN THE MATTER OF:-
Punjab and Sind Bank, Regional Office: Mustafabad, District: Yamuna Nagar, Haryana through its Branch Manager Sh. Vinod Kumar. ....Appellant
Versus
Piar Kaur, wife of Baldev Singh, resident of Village: Sardehri, District: Ambala. …..Respondent/complainant
CORAM: Naresh Katyal, Judicial Member
Argued by:- Sh. A.B.S. Sidhu, counsel for the appellant.
None for respondent.
ORDER
NARESH KATYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
Challenge in this appeal No.568 of 2017 has been invited by Punjab and Sind Bank-OP to the legality of order dated 31.03.2017 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-Yamuna Nagar (In short “District Commission”) in complaint case No.425 of 2012.
2. Factual matrix is that: complainant held her saving bank account No. 3029 with OP/appellant since long time. On 01.04.2008, there was Rs.40,935/- as closing balance in her account. Interest of Rs.716/- and Rs.817/- was added and balance became Rs.42,468/-. Complainant got deposited an FDR of Rs.7982/- and another FDR of Rs.18037/- and balance became Rs.68,487/- on 08.06.2009. On same day (08.06.2009) complainant had withdrawn Rs.26,000/- and there was balance of Rs.42,487/- on 08.06.2009 in her account. All entries have been incorporated in her pass book. It is pleaded that: she did not withdrew any amount from her account, except Rs.26,000/-., but, when she approached OP/appellant for withdrawal of some amount, than OP bank/appellant returned the withdrawal voucher on asking that there was no amount in her account. It was told by officials of bank that Rs.10,000/- had been withdrawn on 18.09.2008; further Rs.10,000/- on 01.10.2008 and further Rs.20,000/- has been withdrawn on 08.10.2008. It is pleaded that OP/bank had denied her the amount which is unfair trade practice and it seems that appellant itself or through any person has usurped her amount. Criminal case of forgery is already pending against employees of OP/appellant. Withdrawal from her account is also the result of forgery committed by employees of bank. On these pleas; by asserting cause of action, complaint has been filed for issuance directions to OP/appellant to return actual and correct amount to her in her account with up to date interest; to pay her Rs.50,000/- for causing harassment and mental agony and Rs.7700/- as cost of proceedings.
3. Upon notice, OP/appellant raised contest. In the defence; it is pleaded that there is no deficiency in service on its part. Complainant has no locus standi and cause of action. She is guilty of concealing true and material facts. It is admitted that on 01.04.2008, Rs.40,935/- was closing balance in the account of complainant. On 06.08.2008 there was entry of interest of Rs.716/-. Complainant withdrew Rs.10,000/- on 18.09.2008; Rs.10,000/- in cash on 01.10.2008 and Rs.20,000/- through cheque on 08.10.2008. In this way on 08.10.2008 there was closing balance of Rs.1651/- only in her account. On 02.02.2009 Rs.233/- was credited as interest and on 08.06.2009, Rs.7982/- and 18037/- were transferred in her account and balance became Rs.27,903/- on 08.06.2009. Complainant withdrew Rs.26,000/- on same day (08.06.2009) and balance became Rs.1903/-. As such, there is no question of closing balance of Rs.42,487/- on 08.06.2009 as alleged. There is no question of any other person withdrawing the money from account of complainant or withdrawal by bank staff as alleged. Primarily, on these pleas dismissal of complaint has been prayed.
4. Parties to this lis led evidence, oral as well as documentary.
5. On subjectively analyzing the same; learned District Consumer Commission-Yamuna Nagar vide order dated 31.03.2017 has partly allowed the complaint and directed Op/appellant bank to pay Rs.40,000/- (Rs.10,000/-, Rs.10,000/- & Rs.20,000/-) to complainant along with saving interest as per RBI guidelines from the dates when aforesaid withdrawals were made (18.09.2008, 01.10.2008 & 08.10.2008), till the realization, within thirty days.
6. Feeling aggrieved; OP/bank has filed this appeal.
7. In the present appeal Sh. Jeevan Rana-Advocate has filed his memo of appearance on 21.02.2018 on behalf of complainant/respondent. Thereafter, S/Sh. S.P. Chawla, Naveen Chawla and Madav Arora-Advocates have filed their power of attorney dated 27.04.2018 on behalf of Piar Kaur/complainant. Sh. Ajay Parkash- Advocate appeared as proxy counsel on behalf of Madhav Arora on 07.08.2018. On 11.03.2019 & 27.05.2019 Sh. Jeevan Rana has appeared proxy counsel for Sh. S.P. Chawla. Thereafter, none has represented complainant/respondent in this appeal. On 16.05.2023, when arguments of appellant/bank were heard in this appeal; none has represented complainant/respondent.
8. On behalf of appellant, it is urged that there was no deficiency in service of appellant/bank. Once, there was no sufficient balance in the account of complainant-Piar Kaur then, return of withdrawal voucher to her cannot be termed as deficiency in bank’s service. It is urged that there arises no question of usurping the amount of complainant by any other person, much less by officials of bank. Hence, as per contention, impugned order dated 31.03.2017 is legally unsustainable. Basically, on these submissions appellant/bank has urged for acceptance of this appeal.
9. It is admitted that: complainant-Piar Kaur is consumer of appellant/bank, as she held saving bank account in the bank. It is deciphered that sole case of complainant is based upon allegation that she had not withdrawn, from her account, amount worth Rs.10,000/- on 18.09.2008; Rs.10,000/- on 01.10.2008 and Rs.20,000/- on 08.10.2008. She had withdrawn only Rs.26,000/- on 08.06.2009 and there was closing balance of Rs.42,487/- in her account on 08.06.2009 when she withdrew Rs.26,000/-. It is also an admitted fact of appellant/bank in its written statement (Para 3 thereof) that complainant withdrew this amount viz.: Rs.10,000/- on 18.09.2008 (cash withdrawal); Rs.10,000/- on 01.10.2008 (cash withdrawal) and Rs.20,000/- on 08.10.2008 (through cheque). May be, complainant’s passbook Annexure C-1 does not reflect any entry of withdrawal of amounts viz.: Rs.10,000/- on 18.09.2008; Rs.10,000/- on 01.10.2008 and Rs.20,000/- on 08.10.2008 but that fact stand fortified by Annexure R-1 (half yearly ledger of complainant’s account). Ledger Annexure R-1 also reflects that after withdrawal of amount by way cheque No. 851082 on 08.10.2008; Rs.1651/- was the closing balance. Ledger also reflects that there was two credit entries of Rs.7982/- and Rs.18,037/- in the account of complainant both bearing date as 08.06.2009 and balance became Rs.27,903/- on 08.06.2009. Out of this amount; complainant made withdrawal of Rs.26,000/- by way of cheque No. 854079 leaving credit balance as Rs.1903/-.
10. Above facts clearly demonstrate that: at least on 08.06.2009 complainant must had acquired express knowledge that she did not make withdrawals of Rs.10,000/- on 18.09.2008; Rs.10,000/- on 01.10.2008 and Rs.20,000/- on 08.10.2008, but some other person or some officials of bank had made these illegal withdrawals. Despite that: complainant had filed the complaint on 02.05.2012. Section 24 A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Old Act) prescribes limitation period of two years from the date of accrual of cause of action for filing of complaint. Complaint has been filed on 02.05.2012 i.e. after expiry of prescribed period of two years and thereafter further expiry of about eleven months reckoning from 08.06.2009, when complainant had acquired knowledge of alleged illegal withdrawals of amount from her account. The record of learned District Commission reflects that there is no application in terms of Section 24 A (2) of Consumer Protection Act (Old Act), moved along with complaint for seeking condonation of delay in filing of complaint. In view of above, complaint is clearly time barred. May be, there is no defence raised by OP/appellant/bank in its written statement filed before learned District Consumer Commission regarding bar of limitation, or no averments has been made in memorandum of appeal regarding limitation, yet this lapse will not create any legal impediment before this Commission to suo motu consider this plea of limitation, in view of mandate of Section 3 of Limitation Act and non-suit the complainant right away. More so, it is a legal issue and can be raised at any stage of the proceedings and present appeal is nothing else, but continuation of original complaint. Accordingly, this Commission is of firm opinion that complaint, as instituted before learned District Consumer Commission, was time barred and it should have been dismissed as such, being time barred. Now, this Commission, through present judgment/order dismisses the complainant’s complaint, being time barred. It is accordingly ordered. As a legal corollary so flowing, impugned order dated 31.03.2017 cannot stand at legal pedestal and same is set aside. Consequently, present appeal is allowed.
11. Statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited by appellant at the time of filing of this appeal be refunded to it, after due identification and verification as per rules and on expiry of period meant for further appeal /revision, if any.
12. Application(s) pending, if any stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
13. A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.
14. File be consigned to record room.
Date of pronouncement: 20thJuly, 2023
Naresh Katyal
Judicial Member
Addl. Bench-II
