Punjab

Faridkot

CC/15/83

Asha Kumari - Complainant(s)

Versus

Principal Govt. Senior Secondary School - Opp.Party(s)

Babu Ram

27 Nov 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT.

 

Complaint No. :        83

Date of Institution :  2.07.2015

Date of Decision :    27.11.2015

Asha Kumari w/o Harmesh Kumar r/o House No. B-I/805, Gagan Niwas, Street No. 2, Baba Farid Nagar, Kotkapura, Tehsil Kotkapura, Faridkot.                                        

...Complainant

Versus

1.    Principal, Govt Senior Secondary School (Girls), Jaitu, District, Faridkot.

2.    Treasury Office, Jaitu, District Faridkot through its Treasury Officer.

3. State Bank of Patiala, Jaitu, District Faridkot through its Manager.

                                                                                                                     ....Ops

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum:      Sh Ajit Aggarwal, President,

Smt Parampal Kaur, Member,

Sh P Singla, Member.

Present:       Sh Babu Ram, Ld Counsel for complainant,

 Smt Vinod Kumar Lecturer Maths on behalf of OP-1,

 Smt Kashmir Kaur. T.O. on behalf of OP-2

 Sh Madan Lal Bansal, Ld Counsel for OP-3.

 

(Ajit Aggarwal, President)

1                                              Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Ops seeking directions to OPs to revalidate the cheque or give the amount of cheque with interest and to pay Rs 1,00,000/-as compensation for harassment, mental tension and financial loss suffered by complainant besides cost of litigation.

2                                  Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant is a senior citizen retired from the office of OP-1 in April, 2010 and she was having an account bearing no. 55095599480 with OP-3, which was closed in 2012. After retirement, complainant visited the office of OP-1 to receive arrears and OP-1 got passed arrear bill worth Rs 43081 from OP-2 and then deposited the same with OP-3 for depositing in the account bearing no. 55095599480 of complainant, which was not credited in her account as her account was closed. Thereafter, OP-3 prepared a banker cheque no. 639400 dt 20.12.2013 for Rs 43,081/-in the name of complainant and kept the same with them without giving any intimation either to complainant or to OP-1 till 24.03.2015. During this period, complainant visited OPs may times with request to release arrears, but they kept putting off the matter on one pretext or the other. On 25.03.2015, complainant received a message from OP-3 for collection of arrear by way of banker cheque and when complainant immediately approached them alongwith her husband, she found that said cheque was of dt20.12.2013 and could not be credited. Complainant made many requests to OP-3 to issue fresh cheque, but OP-3 declined her request and asked her to prove that she is the original retiree from the office of OP-1. After that, complainant and her husband approached OP-1, who gave certificate on letter dt 25.03.2015 intimating arrear and date of retirement of complainant and informed salary a/c bearing no. 55095599480. Complainant got verified the said letter from OP-2 on 26.03.2015 with comments about delayed payment of Rs 43,081/-, which is still pending to be paid through banker cheque dt 20.12.2013 and also asked about give reasons for delay in payment by OP-3. After that complainant approached OP-3 and handed over the said letter to them and also gave new bank a/c no. 11432078599 of State Bank of India ADB Kotkapura alongwith home address and OP-3 assured complainant that cheque would be revalidated and amount would be credited in this account, but to his surprise, complainant received registered envelope containing letter no. 351 dt 26.05.2015 with cheque no 639400 dt 20.12.2013 and on receiving the said letter, complainant again approached OP-3 and made request to revalidate the same. Complainant also sent request to Banking Ombudsman Office, Reserve Bank of India, but no action has been taken by them on OP-3. All this amounts to deficiency in service and has caused great harassment and mental tension to complainant. She has prayed for seeking directions to OPs to revalidate the cheque or give the amount of cheque with interest and to pay Rs 1,00,000/-as compensation for harassment, mental tension and financial loss suffered by complainant besides cost of litigation.  Hence, the complaint.

3                                                  The Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 06.07.2015, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

4                                   On receipt of the notice, OP-1 filed written statement taking preliminary objection that complaint is not maintainable against OP-1and is liable to be dismissed as prior to filing of complaint, no notice was issued to them and answering OP is not covered under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act as they have not charged any fee from complainant for services. However, on merits, OP-1 admitted before the Forum that during the service period of complainant, she was having bank account bearing no. 55095599480 with State Bank of Patiala, Jaitu and in year 2013, arrear bill for Rs 43,081/- as per Punjab Govt Policy was prepared by OP and it was got passed for payment from OP-2, who deposited the amount of Rs 43,081/-in her account bearing no. 55095599480 in State Bank of Patiala, Jaitu. It is further averred that answering OP received letter no. 351 dt 26.05.2015 alongwith banker cheque no 639400 dt 20.12.2013 in the name of complainant on 28.05.2015 from OP-3, which they sent to complainant vide despatch no. 524 dt 5.06.2015 through registered post for information and necessary action by complainant as answering OP has no role to play in it. It is asserted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP and all the other allegations have been denied being wrong and incorrect.

5                                       OP-2 also filed reply taking preliminary objections that present complaint is not maintainable against answering OP as it has no relations with complainant and complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint. It is averred that OP-2 have not charged any consideration from complainant and matter relates with complainant and OP-3. It is further averred that OP-2 is working under control of Govt of Punjab, Department of Finance and as per rules /instructions entertain the bills of Government Departments through their drawing and disbursing officers to whom the A.G. Punjab, Chandigarh has conferred DDO powers and accordingly OP-1 i.e Principal, Govt. Sr Sec School, (Girls), Jaitu is the DDO, to whom DDO code is allotted by OP-2. OP-2 after entertaining the bills from OP-1, dispose off the same as per instructions conveyed by OP-1. OP-2 passed the bill as received against Bill No. 66 dt 22.11.2013 vide token no. 1627 dt 25.11.2013 and further transmitted the same to OP-3 for crediting the amount in the name of beneficiary with full details of account number as required and intimated by OP-1. It is asserted that all the transactions are online and as such, matter is between bank, complainant and answering OP has nothing to do with it. After crediting, the amount transmitted electronically is received by OP-2 from OP-3 and after wards OP-2 allotted the Treasury Voucher No. 1053 dt 20.12.2013 of concerned bill and it is also electronically may be got by OP-1 as per rules, procedure and instructions.  However, on merits, OP-2 have denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being wrong and incorrect and reiterated that there that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP and refuted all the other allegations being incorrect.

6                                  OP-3 also filed reply taking preliminary objections that complainant has no locus standi to file the present and she is not the consumer of answering Op and therefore, complaint is not maintainable in the present form. However, on merits, it is averred that online file was received from OP-2 for making credit of Rs 43,081/- in the account no. 55095599438, but as the account was closed in year 2012 and amount could not be credited and therefore, OP-3 prepared a banker cheque, but no one collected the same. Complainant visited OP-3 and claimed amount of banker cheque, which was to be paid to Asha Kumari and payment cannot be made to any other account and therefore, OP-3 requested complainant to get certificate from OP-2 for making payment to complainant and have no objection if payment is made to other account than in 55095599480. It is averred that no banker cheque was handed over to OP-3, rather OP-3 got the same from Clearing Cheque collection box on 25.05.2015, but as the account of complainant was closed and therefore, OP-3 having no alternative, sent the said cheque to Principal, Govt Girls, Sen. Sec. School, Jaitu on 26.05.2015. It is asserted that if complainant wanted to get the amount credited in her account with SBI ADB Kotkapura, then she should have deposited the cheque in her ADB account and banker of complainant would send the same through clearing to the OP-3 and then, answering OP would make payment of banker cheque in question to State Bank of India, who will credit the amount to the account of complainant, but as complainant or any other on his behalf put the said cheque to Clearing Cheque Collection Box of answering OP and OP-3 sent the  same to OP-1 through registered post. It is further averred that complainant neither approached answering OP for revalidating the banker cheque nor OP-3 ever refused for revalidating the banker cheque. It is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-3 and all the other allegations and allegation with regard to relief sought too were refuted with a prayer that complaint may be dismissed with costs against the answering opposite party.

7                     Parties wanted to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings and proper opportunity was given to them.  The complainant tendered in evidence her affidavit Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to C-6 and affidavit of Harmesh Kumar as Ex C-7 and then, closed the evidence.

8                            In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Counsel for OP-1tendered in evidence affidavit of Banvir Kaur as Ex. OP-1/1 and documents Ex OP-1/2 to OP-1/7 and then, closed the evidence. Representative of OP-2 also tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex Op-2/1 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP-2. Ld counsel for OP-3 tendered in evidence affidavit of Jatinder Kumar Gupta as Ex OP-3/1 and document Ex OP-3/2 and then also closed the evidence on behalf of OP-3.

  9                       The Ld Counsel for complainant argued that complainant retired from the office of OP-1 in April/2010. Complainant had a bank account bearing no. 55095599480 with OP-3/bank and during her service her salary was got deposited in this account and same was closed by her in year 2012. Some arrears were due to complainant and OP-1 prepared her arrear bill for Rs 43,081/- in the year 2013 and got passed it for payment from OP-2 as per Policy of Government of Punjab. The OP-2 got deposited the same with OP-3 in her bank account no. 55095599480 but the said account was already closed. So, this amount was not credited in the account by OP-3 . OP-3 instead of returning this amount to OP-1 or 2 with remarks that ‘account is closed’, prepared a banker cheque dt 20.12.2013 for this amount in the name of Asha Kumari having a/c no. 55095599480 and kept it with them without any intimation either to complainant or to OPs. Complainant visited OPs many times for getting her arrears but OPs kept putting off the matter on one pretext or the other. On 25.03.2015, complainant received a message from OP-3 to collect the arrear by way of banker cheque. She immediately alongwith her husband went to the office of OP-3 and found that the said cheque is of dt 20.12.2013 and its validity period is expired and it could not be credited. She requested OP-3 for issuance of fresh cheque but they refused to do so, rather asked her to prove that she is the original person in whose favour the payment is made by OP-1 and 2. On it, she approached OP-1 and OP-1 gave a certificate intimating regarding arrears and date of retirement of complainant. Complainant got this letter verifies from OP-2 with the comments about delay in payment which is still pending and is to be paid and OP-2 further asked about the reasons for delay in payment from Op-3. The said letter is Ex C-3. Thereafter, complainant approached OP-3 and handed over the said letter to them and requested them to credit the amount in her bank account with State Bank of India, ADB, Kotkapura. OP-3 assured complainant that cheque will be revalidated and deposited in her account. On 6.06.2015, complainant received a registered envelop from OP-1 containing letter dt 26.05.2015 of OP-3 alongwith expired banker cheque dt 20.12.2013. On it, complainant approached OP-s and requested them to revalidate the cheque but they did not hear the request of complainant. as the validity period of the said cheque expired much prior and it cannot be encashed. Copy of the letter dt 26.05.2015 issued by Op-3 to Op-1 is Ex C-5 and copy of the cheque dt 20.12.2013 is Ex C-6. All these acts of OPs amount to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on their part for not revalidating the cheque and keeping this amount of complainant for such a long time with them. Due to it, complainant has suffered inconvenience, harassment and financial loss. Complainant has prayed for directing the OPs to pay her arrear amount worth Rs 43,081/- alongwith interest and compensations.

10                         In reply to arguments of complainant, counsel for OP-1 argued that present complaint is not maintainable against them as the complainant is not their consumer. However, they admitted that complainant retired from their office in year 2010 and she was having bank account with OP-3 during her service period. They also admitted that in the year 2013, an arrear bill of Rs 43081/- of the complainant was prepared by them and got passed for payment from office of OP-2 as per Punjab Government Policy. The OP-2 deposited this amount in the account of complainant with Op-3. The copy of arrear bill is Ex Op-1/2. They have rightly prepared the arrear bill of complainant and deposited it in her bank account which was available with them and after it there is no role of OP-1 in it, but complainant never approached them regarding her arrear bill. However, complainant approached OP-1 on 25.03.2015 and demanded a certificate that she is retired from their office and had bank account in the bank of OP-3 as desired by OP-3. On it, OP-1 duly issued letter in the name of OP-3 certifying it. Later on, OP-1 received banker cheque for Rs 43,081/-dt 20.12.2013 in the name of complainant from OP-3 alongwith letter dt 26.05.2015. As the cheque was in the name of complainant and OP-1 has nothing to do with it, so, they further despatched this cheque vide registered post on 5.06.2015 to complainant for information and necessary action and after it they have no role to play in this case. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-1 and complaint against them may be dismissed. Counsel for OP-2 argued that complainant is not the consumer of OP-2. She has no locus standi to file the present complaint against them. Op-2 is working under the control of Government of Punjab, Department of Finance as per directions issued from time to time. OP-2 as per rules has to entertain the bills of Government Departments through their Drawing and Disbursing Officers as appointed by AG Punjab. OP-1 is DDO and DDO code was allotted to them as per instructions of Government. OP-2 received arrear bill no. 66 dt 22.11.2013 from OP-1 regarding arrear of complainant and OP-2 further instructed it to OP-3 for making credit in the name of complainant with full detail of account number as intimated by OP-1 vide Treasury Voucher (T.V) No. 1053 dt 20.12.2013 as per rules and procedure. After it OP-2 has nothing to do with this amount. The complainant never visited OP-2 for enquiry regarding her arrear prior to 25.03.2015. On 25.03.2015, she visited the office of OP-2 and narrated whole story regarding non receipt of payment by OP-3 and told to verify the letter issued by OP-1. On it, OP-2 questioned regarding non payment and directed OP-3 to make payment immediately. OP-2 passed the bill of complainant immediately when they received it from OP-1 and sent it to OP-3 for collection and there is no delay on their part. Even when complainant approached them regarding non payment of bill, they immediately questions bank for non payment and instructed them to make payment. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-2 and prayer for dismissal of complaint is made.

11                         The ld Counsel for OP-3 argued that complainant has no locus standi and cause of action to file the present complaint against them. She is not their consumer. She had closed her account with OP-3 in year 2012 and same is admitted by complainant herself. However, they admitted that they received an online file from OP-2 for making credit of Rs 43,081/- in her account bearing no. 55095599480 in the name of Asha Kumari , but as this account was already closed, so, the amount could not be credited in that account. Answering OP-3 prepared a banker cheque of that amount but no one collected the same from Op-3. In the  month of March, 2015 complainant visited the office of OP-3 and claimed the amount of banker cheque as this amount was to be paid to Asha Kumari having account bearing no. 55095599480 and the payment cannot be made to any other account as per instruction of OP-2. So, OP-3 requested complainant to get a certificate from OP-2 that payment be made to Asha Kumari through another account and complainant and Asha Kumari having account bearing no. 55095599480 is the same person. The complainant produced a letter dt 26.03.2015 of OP-2, but still Op-2 not clarified whether the payment can be made to any other account. Op-3 can not credit the amount of banker cheque in the account of complainant with State Bank of India ADB, Kotkapura and if complainant wants to get that amount credited in that account, she should have deposited that cheque in SBI Kotkapura and OP-3 would make payment of cheque to SBI through clearing but complainant did not present the said cheque for collection through SBI, Kotkapura. So, having no alternative, OP-3 sent the cheque to Principal/Op-1 on 26.05.2015. Complainant never visited the office of Op-3 for revalidating the cheque in question and they never refused to do so, and are still ready to revalidate the cheque at any time. There is no deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of Op-3 and the present complaint against them may be dismissed.

12                      We have heard learned counsel for parties and have very carefully perused the affidavits & documents placed on the file by complainant as well as opposite party.

13                            In the present case, it is admitted fact that complainant was an employee of OP-1 and retired from their office in year 2010 and she had a bank account with OP-3. It is also admitted that OP-1 prepared an arrear bill of Rs 43,081/-in favour of complainant and got it passed from OP-2 who sent it to OP-3 for crediting the same in the account of complainant with them, but the account of complainant with Op-3 was already closed and amount could not be credited in that account and OP-3 instead of returning this amount alongwith remarks of account closed kept this amount with them by way of banker cheque in the name of Asha Kumari bearing account no 55095599480, which was already closed and not in existence at that time. They even did not send this banker cheque to either complainant or to OP-1 and 2 and kept it with them without giving any intimation to them. Moreover, when complainant approached OP-3 for receiving the banker cheque, they refused to handover the same to her and asked her to get certificate from OP-1 and 2 that she is the one and same person in whose favour the banker cheque is issued. Even after letter issued by OP-1 and certified by OP-2, that complainant is the same person in whom favour the payment is made and further OP-2 asked OP-3 for delay in payment, OP-3 still not handed over the cheque to them and refused to revalidate the cheque. As the validity period of the cheque expired much prior, instead of handing over the cheque to complainant, after revalidating, they sent the cheque to OP-1. There is no explanation on behalf of OP-3 that why they kept the amount of RS 43,081/-, which was sent by OP-2 to credit it in the account of complainant. if account was closed then in that case, bank should have to return it to OP-2 intimating the same to them but instead of it, they kept this amount with them by way of banker cheque dt 20.12.2013 in favour of same bank account which was already closed and kept this amount with them for more than 1 ½ years and when complainant approached OP-3 for collecting the cheque, they refused to hand over the same to her and also to revalidate it even after the letter issued by OP-1 and 2. All these acts of OP-3 amount to deficiency in service and mal trade practice on the part of OP-3. Therefore, in these circumstances, we come to the conclusion that OP-3 is liable for deficiency in service and mal trade practice. Complainant has succeeded in proving her case. Hence, complaint in hand is hereby allowed. OP-3 is ordered to pay the amount of Rs 43,081/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per anum from 20.12.2013 till final realization to complainant. OP-3 is also directed to pay Rs 10,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by her and Rs. 3000/-as litigation expenses. OP-3 is directed to comply with the order within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of order, failing which complainant shall be entitled to proceed under Section 25 and 27 of Consumer Protection Act. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room.

Announced in open Forum:

     Dated: 27.11.2015

Member                Member               President       (Parampal Kaur)    (P Singla)                (Ajit Aggarwal)

 

 

 

 

 

//