Haryana

Kurukshetra

160/2018

Parmod Singhla - Complainant(s)

Versus

PNB - Opp.Party(s)

04 Jun 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

 

Consumer Complaint no. 160 of 2018.

Date of instt. 25.07.2018. 

                                                                      Date of Decision: 04.06.2019.

 

Parmod Singla son of Sh. Om Parkash, R/o House No.755, Sector-7, Urban Estate, Kurukshetra. 

                                                                ……….Complainant.      

                        Versus

 

1. Senior Manager P.N. Br. Ratgal Chatha Complex, Kurukshetra.\
2. R.C.C. PNB Br. Sector-17 Chandigarh.
3. Manager ICICI Bank Jhandewala extension Regional Processing Centre, New Delhi.
4. Manager UCO Bank in front of the Telephone Exchange Pipli Road, Kurukshetra.  

 

..………Opposite parties.

 

       Complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.            

 

Before       Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.    

                Ms. Neelam, Member. 

                Sh. Sunil Mohan Trikha, Member                                          

Present:     Complainant in person.       

Sh. Lovekesh Machhal, Advocate for opposite parties Nos. 1   and 2.

Sh. Rohit Jindal, Advocate for opposite party no.3.

Sh. Vivek Garg, Advocate for opposite party no.4.

           

ORDER

                                                                         

                    This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Parmod Singla against Senior Manager, PNB and others, the opposite parties.

2.             It is stated in the complaint that complainant is an account holder in PNB, Branch Ratgal Chatha complex, Kurukshetra and has sufficient fund in his aforesaid account. That complainant issued cheque No.490781 for Rs.2500/- dated 24.4.2018 to star media, but the said cheque was not paid to the aforesaid party by PNB on the plea that the signature of the complainant on the cheque do not match with his signature in their record. Similarly, the complainant issued a cheque of Rs.12,000/- bearing No.490789 dated 23.5.2018 to one Sh. Harkash and this cheque also met with same fate and it was returned unpaid by PNB on the same pretext that signature of complainant do not match with the signature in their record. That the aforesaid two parties returned the cheques to the complainant with the copies of objection raised by PNB and PNB has deducted an amount of Rs.708/- (Rs.354/- for each cheque) from the account of the complainant. It is further averred that complainant approached PNB, Ratgal Branch lodging a complaint about the incident and requested them to refund Rs.708/- and they wrote to their office R.C.C. Chandigarh verifying that the signatures of the complainant on the cheques do not differ at all. That despite the admission and confession of PNB his home branch that signature of complainant on the cheques match with the signature in the bank record and do not differ in any way, the deducted amount from the account of complainant on account of so called bouncing of cheques has not been refunded to the complainant despite several visits to the bank. Whenever the complainant visits the Bank for the refund of charges, the complainant is put off with an excuse that they are helpless in the matter. That the complainant is a physician MBBS DNB (Medicine) and running a Nursing home and find a little time to attend to his personal matter but still visits to the bank but to no effect. This is not only gross negligence but also deficiency in service and the ops have caused harassment and monetary loss to the complainant. Hence, this complaint.

3.             Upon notice, opposite parties appeared. Ops no.1 and 2 filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that the disputed cheques were stopped by the answering op no.2 due to the fact “signature differs”. The act of the bank for stopping the payment was in the interest of the complainant as the sign of the complainant was not matched with the signatures available with the answering op no.2 and bank has stopped the disputed cheque without any malafide intention. The complainant claimed the amount of Rs.708/- from the op no.1 but the internal software of bank Finacale-7 was upgraded in Fincale-10 due to that reason the amount of Rs.708/- was not credited in the account of complainant. But now the bank with interest credited the above said amount of Rs.708/- in the account of the complainant on 3.12.2018. Remaining contents of the complaint are denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.

4.             Op no.3 in its separate written statement took certain preliminary objections that complainant unnecessarily dragged/ arrayed the op no.3 in this complaint without any basis as there is no role of op no.3 in this matter. No relief is claimed against op no.3, hence complaint should be dismissed against op no.3 at the initial stage. Other preliminary objections regarding no cause of action, no jurisdiction are also taken. It is submitted that one cheque no.590781 amounting to Rs.2500/- was presented for clearing in account no.017305500476 of Star Media and when this cheque was presented with the PNB Bank for clearance, it was dishonored by the PNB Bank for the reason “Drawer signature different”. Thus, there is no role of op no.3 in the present controversy and has been wrongly impleaded as party in the complaint.

5.             Op no.4 in its separate statement has also taken similar preliminary objections as taken by op no.3.  It is submitted that since the answering op never deducted any amount, so question of refunding any amount or paying any compensation to the complainant does not arise at all.

6.             The complainant produced his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for ops no.1 and 2 tendered document Ex.R1. Ld. Counsel for op no.3 tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A. Ld. Counsel for op no.4 tendered affidavit Ex.RW2/A.

7.             We have heard complainant as well as learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.

8.             Admittedly, the complainant is having account with the opposite party no.1. It is evident from the pleadings of the complainant as well as from the record that complainant issued two cheques one dated 24.4.2018 for Rs.2500/- in favour of Star Media and another dated 23.5.2018 for an amount of Rs.12,000/- in favour of one Harkash and both these cheques were dishonored by op no.1 on the ground “Drawers signatures differs” as is evident from Ex.C6 and admittedly the ops no.1 and 2 deducted an amount of Rs.708/- from the account of complainant on account of charges for presentation of cheques and dishonoring of the same. However, as per averments of ops no.1 and 2, now the amount of Rs.708/- alongwith interest has been credited in the account of complainant on 3.12.2018 i.e. after filing of the present complaint which fact is also evident from copy of account status report Ex.R1 which shows refund of the amount of Rs.708/- alongwith interest of Rs.16/-. Now the grievance of the complainant only relates to compensation for unnecessary harassment. As per averments of ops no.1 and 2, the amount of Rs.708/- was not credited in the account of complainant due to internal software problem. It is evident from Ex.C1 which is letter written by Senior Manager, P{NB Ratgal to Branch Office, RCC Chandigarh i.e. op no.2 in which Senior Manager PNB Ratgal Branch has admitted that signature of customer does not differ in cheques. So, in our view, the complainant is entitled to some amount of compensation for harassment as he has to file the complaint for redressal of his grievance and end of justice would be met if the ops no.1 and 2 are directed to make payment of Rs.5000/- as compensation to the complainant. However, no liability of any kind of ops no.3 and 4 is made out.

9.             In view of above, we allow the present complaint qua ops no.1 and 2 direct the ops no.1 and 2 to pay an amount of Rs.5000/- to the complainant as compensation for harassment within a period  of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the complainant will be entitled to interest @7% per annum from the date of order till actual realization. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.   

Announced in open Forum:

Dt.: 04.06.2019 

                                                                        (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                        President.

(Neelam)           (Sunil Mohan Trikha)        

                Member                     Member