Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/955/2012

M/s Krishna Solar Energy - Complainant(s)

Versus

PNB - Opp.Party(s)

Vijay Deep singh

27 Jun 2017

ORDER

 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR.

 

                                                                                                Complaint No. 955 of 2012

                                                                                                Date of institution: 09.05.2012  

                                                                                                Date of decision: 27.06.2017

 

M/s Krishna Solar Energy Centre, Radaur, Tehsil Jagadhri District Yamuna Nagar through its proprietor Dina Nath Son of Shri Harpal Singh, aged about 36 years, resident of village Labkri Tehsil Indri District Karnal, Haryana.

                      …Complainant.

                                    Versus

 

1. Punjab National Bank, Radaur (482400), Distrcit Yamuna Nagar through its Branch Manager.
2. Circle Head, Punjab National Bank, Chatta Complex, Pipli Road, Kurushetra,

 

                                                                                                                …Respondents     

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG…………….. PRESIDENT.

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA………………………….MEMBER.

                       

 

Present:           Shri Vijaydeep Singh, Advocate for complainant.

                        Shri P.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate for OPs.

 

ORDER (ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT)

 

1.                     The present complaint has been filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 against the respondent (hereinafter will be referred as OPs).

2.                     Brief facts as alleged in the complaint are that complainant firm has an account bearing No.4824002100001668 with the OP No.1 Bank and on 07.08.2012, the complainant firm had approached to the OP No.1 to withdraw some amount from their account but the official of the OP No.1 Bank did not permit the complainant to withdraw the amount from their account without giving any sufficient reason. On asking, official of the OP No.1 told the complainant that their account has been freezed as per of the order of the OP No.2. Thereafter, the complainant made several requests to release the amount but all in vain. Ultimately, a Legal Registered Notice dated 13.08.2012 was also served upon OP No.1. The OP No.1 gave a false and frivolous reply to the registered legal notice and refused to give permission to withdraw the amount from the account of complainant. Hence, there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Lastly prayed for directing the OPs to release the amount lying in the account of the complainant firm along with interest and also to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses.

3.                     Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed their written statement jointly taking some preliminary objections such as there is no deficiency in service; it is the complainant who misrepresent the facts and committed a breach of trust, whereby the complainant plotted a conspiracy to ditch and defraud the bank with the malafide intention; the complainant has concealed the true and material facts, complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint; complicated question of facts and law involved in the present case which cannot be decided by way of summary procedure; the OPs Bank has already adjusted part payment of Rs.1,06,552/-  out of total cheque amount paid in cash to the complainant on the basis of right to set off by way of general lien towards his all other accounts as per the provisions of law and Banking Rules and still a sum of Rs.24198/-  along with interest upto date is recoverable from the complainant and on merit it has been mentioned that complainant firm, having two different accounts in the different branches of the OPs Bank, one at Garhi Beerbal bearing current account No.1930002100003108 and current account No. 4824002100001668. On dated 14.05.2012, a sum of Rs.2,42,706/- was standing in the account maintained at PNB Garhi Beerbal and on that day the complainant presented the cheque bearing No.035836  for a sum of Rs.1,35,000/- at PNB Bank Jathlana for payment from their current account bearing No. 1930002100003108 and when the cheque was presented there  was sufficient amount to honour the cheque but in the meanwhile when the bank official were completing the transaction process, the connectivity of the system failed for the time being. Since, the complainant was an esteem customer of the Bank so upon the faith, the branch officials of PNB Jathlana accommodated the complainant by making cash payment of the cheque amount by believing the bonafide representation insisted on the bank official, that the complainant is having sufficient account in his account at Branch PNB Garhi Beerbal to honour above cheque amount. However, when subsequently the connectivity was restored at the closing hours, on verification of facts by the manager, bank was shocked to know that there was not sufficient balance, in the account of the complainant at PNB Branch Garhi Beerbal due to withdrawal of the almost entire amount in the meanwhile on the same day. It has been further mentioned that since entire amount except the sum of Rs.17706/- was lying after withdrawal from the complainant;s account. The complainant committed breach of trust and plotted a conspiracy to ditch and defraud the OPs Bank. The OPs Bank as per banking rules, on 08.09.2012, recoverable a sum of Rs.1,06,552/- from account No. 4824002100001668 and credited the same in account No. 1930002100003108 on the instructions of the higher officers of the bank. Moreover, concerned Bank Manager made the payment of Rs.24198/- from his own accountto clear the debit balance of account No. 1930002100003108 as per instruction of the higher authorities and as such the said amount of Rs.24,198/-  along with upto date interest is legally recoverable from the complainant. Rest contents of the complaint were denied being concocted and manipulated and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                     In support of his case, learned counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence short affidavit of Shri Dina Nath, Proprietor of the Firm as Annexure CW/A, photocopy of letter dated 07.08.2012 regarding the intimation for freezing the account as Annexure C-1, account statement as Annexure C-2, photocopy of legal notice as Annexure C-3, photocopy of postal receipt as Annexure C-4 and C-5, photocopy of reply of legal notice as Annexure C-6 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.                     On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Shri Raj Kumar Chawla, Branch Manager, PNB Radaur as RW/A, photocopy of cheque amounting of Rs.1,35,000/-  as Annexure R-1, photocopy of inquiry status report as Annexure R-2 to R-5, attested copy of account statement of account No.3108 as Annexure R-6, attested copy of account statement of account bearing No.1668 as Annexure R-7 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.

6.                     We have heard the learned counsel for parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on the file very carefully and minutely.

7.                     The only grievance of the complainant is that when he approached to the OP No.1 bank to withdraw some amount from the account of the firm bearing No. 4824002100001668, the official of the OP No.1 Bank did not permit the complainant to withdraw the amount from his account without any sufficient reason which constitute the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs Bank. Lastly prayed for acceptance of the complaint.

8.                     Learned counsel for the OPs argued at length that complainant firm was having two different current accounts two different branches of PNB, one at Garhi- Beerbal and other at Radaur and on 14.05.2012 a sum of Rs.2,42,706/- was standing in the account maintained at PNB Garhi Beerbal and on that day the complainant presented the cheque bearing No.035836  for a sum of Rs.1,35,000/- at PNB Bank Jathlana for payment from their current account bearing No. 1930002100003108 and when the cheque was presented there was sufficient amount to honour the cheque but in the meanwhile when the bank officials were completing the transaction process the connectivity of the system failed for the time being. Since, the complainant was an esteem customer of the Bank, so upon the faith, the branch officials of PNB Jathlana accommodated the complainant by making cash payment of the cheque amount by believing the bonafide representation insisted on the bank officials, that the complainant was having sufficient account in his account at Branch PNB Garhi Beerbal to honour above cheque amount. However, when subsequently the connectivity was restored at the closing hours, on verification of facts, the manager of the bank was shocked to know that there was not sufficient balance, in the account of the complainant at PNB Branch, Garhi Beerbal due to withdrawal of the almost entire amount in the meanwhile on the same day. It has been further mentioned that since entire amount except the sum of Rs.17,706/- was lying after withdrawal from the complainant’s account. The complainant committed breach of trust and plotted a conspiracy to ditch and defraud the OPs Bank. The OPs Bank, as per banking rules, on 08.09.2012, recovered a sum of Rs.1,06,552/- from account No. 4824002100001668 and credited the same in account No. 1930002100003108 on the instructions of the higher officers of the bank. Moreover, concerned Bank Manager made the payment of Rs.24,198/- from his own pocket to clear the debit balance of account No. 1930002100003108 as per instructions of the higher authority and as such the said amount of Rs.24,198/-  along with interest upto the date is legally recoverable from the complainant. Learned counsel for the OPs further argued that the complainant firm was having current account with the OP Bank for commercial purpose. Hence, the complaint of the complainant also deserves dismissal under Section 2(1)(d) of the consumer protection Act. Further, the learned counsel for the OPs draw our attention towards guidelines i.e. General Banking Laws placed on file during the arguments and argued that banker has a right to combine two or more account, of a consumer in the same name and same right, if one of them is showing debit balance. This is statutory right arising on account of contractual obligations between the Bank and its customers. Different branches of the Bank are treated as one unit for exercising this right. This right is not available if there is an agreement (express or implied) for not exercising this right. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of the complaint with heavy cost.

9.                     After hearing both the parties, we are of the considered view that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs as the OPs Bank has specifically mentioned in their written statement that there was a great Breach of Trust committed by the complainant with well plotted conspiracy to ditch and defraud the bank. Since, the account maintained by the complainant firm at PNB Radaur was having sufficient amount in his account to set off the withdrawn amount of Rs.1,35,000/- from the PNB Jathlana Branch from his current account No. 1930002100003108  by playing fraud as the connectivity of the system failed for the time being and the branch officials of the PNB Jathlana accommodated the complainant by making the cash payment of the cheuqe amount believing his bonafide representation insisted on the bank officials that he has sufficient amount in his account at Branch Garhi Beerbal to honour the cheque. However, subsequently, when the connectivity was restored at the closing hours, on verification of the facts by the Manager, Bank was shocked to know that there was debit balance in the account of the complainant at Garhi Beerbal due to the withdrawal of almost entire amount in meanwhile on the same day by the complainant. These facts have not been rebutted by the complainant by filing rejoinder of the written statement nor any cogent evidence has been placed on file to rebut the defence taken by the OPs Bank. Furthermore, even the complainant has not disclosed in his complaint that to withdraw how much money he went to OP Bank as no documentary evidence has been placed on file. Further, It is admitted case of the complainant that complainant firm is having current account with the OP Bank for doing the commercial activities to earn the profit by running run the business of Firm M/s Krishna Solar Energy Centre, Radaur and as per Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, which is reproduce here as under:

“consumer means any person who-

2.  [hires or avails of] any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who [hires or avails of] the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person [but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose].

So, after going through the above noted definition, we are of the considered view that complainant firm does not fall under the definition of consumer and the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable.

10.                   Resultantly, in the circumstances noted above, we are of the considered view that neither the complaint is maintainable nor there is merit in the present complaint. Hence, the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. Copies of this order be supplied to the parties concerned as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Pronounced in open court.                                         

Dated: 27.06.2017.                                                      (ASHOK KUMAR GARG),

                                                                                    PRESIDENT, DCDRF

                                                                                    YAMUNA NAGAR AT JAGADHRI

                       

 

                                                                                    (S.C. SHARMA)          

                                                                                    MEMBER