BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KURUKSHETRA.

Complaint Case No.257 of 2018

Date of instt: 30.11.2018. 

                                                Date of Decision: 29.11.2021.

Jai Bharti Vidya Mandir School, Ram Nagar, Thanesar, Kurukshetra through its Principal.

                                                ……..Complainant.

                        Vs.

Punjab National Bank, Laxman  Colony Bye Pass Road, near Taj Palace, Thanesar, Kurukshetra through its Manager.

..………Opposite party.

                 Complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.  

Before       Smt.   Mrs.Neelam Kashyap, President.

                Ms. Neelam, Member.

                Sh. Issam Singh Sagwal, Member.

Present:     Shri S.D.Sharma Advocate for the complainant.

                Shri Mohit Arora  Advocate for the OP.

ORDER     

                   This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Jai Bharti Vidya Mandir School, through its Principal against Punjab National Bank, Thanesar the opposite party.

2.            Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant is an educational institution/school having a bank account bearing No.0873000100189614 with the OP-Bank.  The complainant issued a cheque in the name of Jai  JPR Associates bearing cheque No. 157768 dated 21.09.2017 for an amount of Rs.23,019/- of Punjab National Bank, Thanesar (Kurukshetra) which was  dishonoured by the OP on account of different signature of the complainant/drawer, while in fact the signatures on cheque was same as in the documents relating with the  account submitted at the time of opening of the account by the complainant. It is also submitted that due to dishonor of cheque , the complainant felt humiliated in the eyes os Jai JPR Associates as the Jai JPR Associates  sent a legal notice u/s 138 to the complainant and the complainant has to feel sorry and paid cheque amount with interest.  It is mentioned that the OP did not contacted the complainant before dishonouring the cheque .  The OP  could verify on phone whether the cheque was issued by the complainant or not before dishonouring the cheque.  The complainant sent two letters dated 12.2.2018 and 15..11.2017 to the Manager, PNB but no reply of the said letters was given by the OP to the complainant. The OP deducted Rs.354/- from the account of the complainant as fine because of dishonor of cheque. Now a days it is becoming a trend to dishonor the on one pretext or the other only to charge fine and banks are raising huge amount by this way.  Thus, it is submitted that such act on the part of the OP amounts to deficiency in services  and the complainant has filed the present complaint alleging deficiency in services on the part of the OP and has sought compensation from the OP.

3.             The OP appeared and filed written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. It is submitted that it is denied that signatures of the cheque and are same as the signatures in the documents submitted at the time of opening of the account of the complainant.  It is submitted that due to  dishonor of the cheque, the complainant felt humiliated in the eyes of JRP Associates. It is further denied that said JPR Associates has issued any legal notice u/s 138 to the complainant since the complainant has failed to bring any such notice on record. It is further denied that the complainant has sent two letters dated 12.2.2018 and 15.11.2017 to the Manager of the OP for want of knowledge and the complainant may be put to strict proof to support its averments. The complainant has  very conveniently concealed the fact  from this Commission that the alleged cheque bearing No.157768 dated 21.09.2017 issued by the complainant was presented by the said payee in Karnal with its Bank i.e. Corporation Bank which is clear from the cheque as well as returning memo and therefore, the answering OP is not liable for deficiency in service, if any, and therefore, the present complaint is not maintainable against the OP. It is however, submitted that the Bank is not duty bound to contact the customers before dishonouring of cheque or confirming on phone whether the cheque has been issued by him or not. Had the banks been duty bound to call the customers before dishonouring the cheques, there would have been no complaints pending  u/s 138  before  the various courts. It is denied that the OP has deducted an amount of Rs.354/- from the account of complainant as fine of dishonor of cheque.  It is submitted that no cause of action has arisen at Kurukshetra and there is no deficiency in services on the part of the OP. While denying the other averments,  preliminary objections regarding  non joinder of necessary parties, jurisdiction has been filed and it is submitted that the present complaint may kindly be dismissed.

4.             The complainant in support of  its case has filed affidavit Ex.CW1/A and tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-5 and closed its evidence.

5.             On the other hand, the OP in support of its case has filed affidavit Ex,RW1/A and closed  its evidence.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available on the case file.

7.             The learned counsel for the complainant while reasserting the averments made in the complaint has argued that complainant is an educational institution/school having a bank account bearing No.0873000100189614 with the OP-Bank.  The complainant issued a cheque in the name of Jai JPR Associates bearing cheque No. 157768 dated 21.09.2017 for an amount of Rs.23,019/- of Punjab National Bank, Thanesar (Kurukshetra) which was  dishonoured by the OP on account of different signature of the complainant/drawer, while in fact the signatures on cheque was same as in the documents relating with the  account submitted at the time of opening of the account by the complainant. It is also submitted that due to dishonor of cheque , the complainant felt humiliated in the eyes of  Jai JPR Associates as the Jai JPR Associates  sent a legal notice u/s 138 to the complainant and the complainant has to feel sorry and paid cheque amount with interest.  It is further argued  that the OP did not contacted the complainant before dishonouring the cheque .  The OP could verify on phone whether the cheque was issued by the complainant or not before dishonouring the cheque.  It is also argued that the  complainant sent two letters dated 12.2.2018 and 15.11.2017 to the Manager, PNB but no reply of the said letters was given by the OP to the complainant. The OP deducted Rs.354/- from the account of the complainant as fine because of dishonor of cheque.

8.             The learned counsel for the OP while reiterating the contentions made in the written statement has argued that it is wrong that the  signatures of the cheque  are same as the signatures in the documents submitted at the time of opening of the account of the complainant.  It is further argued that due to  dishonor of the cheque, the complainant felt humiliated in the eyes of JRP Associates. It is further argued that said JPR Associates has issued any legal notice u/s 138 to the complainant since the complainant has failed to bring any such notice on record. It is further  argued that it is denied that the complainant has sent two letters dated 12.2.2018 and 15.11.2017 to the Manager of the OP for want of knowledge and the complainant may be put to strict proof to support its averments.  It is however, submitted that the Bank is not duty bound to contact the customers before dishonouring of cheque or confirming on phone whether the cheque has been issued by him or not. Had the banks been duty bound to call the customers before dishonouring the cheques, there would have been no complaints pending u/s 138  before  the various courts. Reliance has been placed on the authority Affirmed in Pushpakala R.Jimula Vs. State Bank of India 2016 SCC Online NCDRC 2543.

9.             After hearing both the sides at length and going through the record, some facts regarding issuance of cheque from OP bank from Kurukshetra, presentation of cheque for encashment in the Corporation Bank Karnal and dishonouring of the cheque in question are not in dispute.  As per Ex.C-2, the said cheque was dishonoured by the Punjab National Bank, Karnal.  Upon dishonouring of the cheque, the complainant school wrote letters dated 15.11.2017 Ex.C-3 and letter dated 12.2.2018  Ex.C-4 to the OP bank. These both the letters carries signatures of the person receiving these letters but the OP has not taken any action. The statement of account Ex.C-5 of the complainant shows that amount of Rs.300/- and Rs.54/- have been deducted from the account of the complainant by the OP-bank on 25.09.2017.

10.            The argument of the learned counsel for the OP that this complaint is not maintainable before this Commission and that no cause of action has arisen at Kurukshetra is devoid of any merit. In this case, the cheque in question was issued from the OP –bank at Kurukshetra and the amount of Rs.354/- was also deducted from the account of the complainant  at Kurukshetra. Therefore, the complainant has cause of action to file the present complaint and the present complaint is well maintainable before this Commission. Upon receipt of the letters Ex.C-3 and Ex.C-4, the  OP could have verified the signatures of the complainant and could have patched up the matter regarding deduction of amount  of Rs.354/- from the account of the complainant but the OP could not dare to even reply the said letters which amounts to deficiency in services  on the part of the OP.

11.            The arguments of the learned counsel for the OP that PNB-Karnal and Corporation Bank, has not been impleaded as party is also devoid of any merit because the amount of Rs.354/- was deducted by the OP bank at Kurukshetra and specimen signatures of the complainant were available with the OP-bank, therefore, there is deficiency in services on the part of the OP and the complainant is entitled to refund of amount of Rs.354/- from the OP alongwith compensation for the mental harassment and agony caused to the complainant. The authority cited on behalf  of the OP is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

12.            In view of our above discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the OP-bank to refund the amount of Rs.354/- to the complainant  alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 30.11.2018 till its realization and shall also  pay the compensation of Rs.5000/- in lump sum for the mental agony and harassment caused to him and for the litigation expenses. The OP - bank is further directed to make the compliance of this order within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to initiate proceedings u/s 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned as per rules. The file be indexed and consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in the Open Commission

Dated: 29.11.2021.           

                                                                               President.

                                      Member          Member