Haryana

Ambala

CC/178/2012

VISHAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

PNB. - Opp.Party(s)

R.K JINDAL

07 Oct 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

                                                                               Vishal Vs. PNB

Complaint case no. : 178 of 2012

Date of Institution    : 06.06.2012 

Date of decision       : 07.10.2016.

Vishal Engineering co. Head Officer at 255/3, Bangali Mohalla, Ambala Cantt, through its Partner Sh. Parveen Jain. 

                                                                            ……. Complainant.

1. Punjab National Bank, S.S.I. Branch, Sadar Bazaar, Ambala Cantt, through its Senior     Branch Manager.

2.  Punjab National Bank, Punta Sahib, District Sirmaur, Himmachal Prades through its Senior Branch Manager.

 ….…. Respondents.

 

BEFORE:       SH. D.N. ARORA, PRESIDENT

                        SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER                    

 

 

Present:          Sh. R.K. Jindal, counsel for the complainant.

                        Sh. Kawinder Chawla, counsel for the Ops.

ORDER:

                        In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant is running his business of manufacturing of Pet Bottles under the name & Style M/s Vishal Engineer Co. having its head office at 2555/3, Bangali Mohalla, Ambala Cantt and Parveen Jain is registered Partner. Further submitted that M/s Yamuna Beverages Pvt. Ltd. 14, Nariwala Rajban Road, Paonta Sahib use to purchase the pet bottles from the complainant on credit basis and on 24.06.2008 the above named firm M/s Yamuna Beverages Pvt. Ltd. had issued a cheque no. 189533 dated 24.06.2008 for a sum of        Rs. 45,200/- drawn on State Bank of India in favour of the complainant and the complainant deposited said cheque in the branch of O.P. no. 1 for its encashment and the

 

 

said amount of the cheque i.e. a sum of Rs. 42,200/- was credited in the account of complainant. Further submitted that on 17.12.2011 the opposite parties have debited Rs. 42,200/- the amount of the above said cheque from the account of the  complainant on the pretest that the above said cheque was dis-honoured after the lapse of three and half years and the opposite party neither informed about the dis-honourment of the cheque in question nor sent the same cheque to the complainant as such the complainant could not taken any legal action against M/s Yamuna Beverages Pvt. Ltd. who had issued the cheque in question in favour of the complainant. Further submitted that it is clear negligence on the part of opposite parties and the opposite parties are responsible for the above said act and could not debited the above said amount from the account of the complainant and are liable to pay above said amount. Further submitted that the complainant has suffered physical as well as mental harassment, for which the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation, besides the amount of the cheque in question. Hence, the present complaint.

2                      Upon notice, Ops appeared and filed written statement submitting that the cheque in question was dishonoured by state Bank of India and was returned to the complainant and the cheque amount was credited in the account of complainant and the cheque was dishonoured by State Bank of India, but in advertently, the account was not debited on the same date and the cheque was returned on 09.07.2008 to the complainant and at the time of tallying the account, it was come to the notice of the opposite parties that cheque for Rs. 42200/- was credited in the account of complainant on 26.08.2008 and was returned to the complainant, but without debit of the account of the complainant and the amount of cheque was debited in the account of the complainant on 17.09.2011. Further submitted that the complaint is incorrect, denied and the complainant is not entitled for the credit of amount of Rs. 42200/- and is also not entitled for any interest or compensation.

3.                     To prove his version counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of complainant as Annexure CX along with documents as annexure C1 to C6 and close their evidence. On the other hand counsel for the respondent tendered affidavit of respondent as Annexure RX along with documents as annexure R1 and R2 and close the evidence on behalf of respondent.

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

5.                     It is admitted fact on record that cheque in question bearing no. 189533 dated 24.06.2008 which was issued by M/s Yamuna Beverages Pvt Ltd. 14, Nariwala Rajban road, Paonta Sahib and same was deposited by the complainant with his banker PNB, Ambala i.e. OP no. 1 and same was credit on 26.06.2008 in his account. It has also not disputed of the opposite party No. 1 has debited the amount from his account first time on 17.09.2011 as admitted by the opposite party in written statement in para no. 5 of preliminary objections as well as in Ex. R1 produced by the opposite party. However, opposite party has taken the stands that the cheque was dis-honoured by the banker of the M/s Yamuna Beverages Pvt Ltd. 14, Nariwala Rajban road, Paonta Sahib and but the above said cheque was  also returned to the complainant on 09.07.2008 and the same was entered in the dispatch register of the OP No.1 but there is no endorsement number in the dispatch nor any signature of any party who had received the returned cheque, this document can not be relied upon. It is very surprising that after lapse of the 3 years, opposite party strait way has debited the amount of cheque Rs. 42,200/- first time in the account of the complainant without serving any notice to the complainant. Hence, the amount has been wrongly deducted from the account of the complainant after the period of 3 years. In this way, the complainant has been deprived  from lodging any complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act,1886 and also deprived to file any recovery suit in the Civil Court. Hence, the entry made by the

 

 

opposite party is illegal. It is an unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.

6.                     In view of above said discussion, the present complainant is hereby allowed with costs and the Ops are directed to credit the amount of Rs.42,200/- within one month from receipt of the copy of order, failing which the complainant is entitled to take any legal action against the opposite party under the Consumer Protection Act. Costs of Rs. 3000/- is assessed and copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to record room after compliance.

Announced On: 07.10.2016                                              

                                                                                                Sd/-                      

                                                                                   (D.N. ARORA)                                                                                                                                                                                                             President

 

                        Sd/-

    (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                                                                                  Member