Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/18/183

Baldev Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab and sind Bank - Opp.Party(s)

20 Nov 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. 183 of 16.03.2018

Date of Decision            :   20.11.2018

Baldev Singh aged about 42 years s/o Sh.Hardial Singh s/o Sh.Tarlok Singh r/o village Dehlon, Tehsil and District Ludhiana.

….. Complainant

                                                         Versus

Punjab & Sind Bank, Branch Village Dehlon, Tehsil and District Ludhiana, through its General Manager.

Opposite party

 

 

             (Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

 

QUORUM:

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

SH.VINOD GULATI, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant              :         In person

For OP                           :         Ex-parte.

 

PER G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.                Complainant claims to have saving bank account No.000000851000010696 with OP, due to which, he presented a cheque No.027946 dated 27.9.2017 of amount of Rs.2 lac, issued by one Harnek Singh Dhillon drawn on Punjab National Bank, Goindwal, Ludhiana for encashment. That cheque was returned vide memo dated 13.11.2017 with an endorsement that no such account is there in the drawer bank. However, OP kept the cheque and memo with it in connivance with said Harnek Singh Dhillon, due to which, complainant could not file the complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act read with Section 420 IPC. Even intimation on telephone was not given to complainant regarding dishonor of cheque. However, on 12.2.2018, when the complainant visited OP bank for withdrawing certain amount there-from, then on inquiry about the status of presented cheque, he was disclosed that cheque was returned as unpaid vide memo dated 13.11.2017. Intentional and deliberate non-return of cheque caused loss to the complainant and as such, by pleading deficiency in service on the part of Op, prayer made for directing OP to pay Rs. 2 lac for causing loss to the complainant of cheque amount.

2.                OP is ex-parte in this case.

3.                Complainant in ex-parte evidence tendered his affidavit Ex.CA along with documents Ex.C1 and Ex.C2 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

4.                Written arguments not submitted, but oral arguments by complainant alone addressed and those were heard. Records gone through carefully.

5.                Contents of affidavit Ex.CA of complainant along with copy of cheque Ex.C1 issued by Harnek Singh Dhillon in favour of complainant Baldev Singh shows that actually cheque of amount of Rs.2 lac dated 27.9.2017 was issued in favour of complainant. This cheque was drawn at Punjab National Bank, Goindwal (Ludhiana). Return memo Ex.C2 produced to show as if this cheque was received returned by OP bank with remarks that no account of Harnek Singh Dhillon is there with Punjab National Bank, but the cheque was returned to the complainant on 12.2.2018, regarding which, endorsement in hand of someone     on memo Ex.C2 is there. Why this cheque after dishonor retained for period    from 13.11.2017 to 12.2.2018, qua that no explanation offered. It is the duty of bank to provide efficient service and as such as per Reserve Bank of India guidelines, it was the duty of OP bank to give intimation to complainant regarding dishonor of cheque within 2-3 days. However, OP retained the cheque with memo of dishonor dated 13.11.2017 (Ex.C2) with it until 12.2.2018 and as such, OP rendered deficient service to the complainant. For this deficiency in service, complainant entitled for compensation for mental agony and harassment and even to litigation expenses.

6.                Complainant can file the civil suit on the basis of cheque Ex.C1 against Harnek Singh Dhillon and as such loss to complainant will be of paying Court fee amount and of bearing expenses for filing the civil suit. The Civil Courts on suit based on Negotiable Instruments often allows interest and as such keeping in view these circumstances in mind and the fact that none has turned up on behalf of OP for contesting the complaint, an amount of Rs.15000/- allowed as compensation for mental harassment, but Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses. To ensure that OP makes the payment of these amounts within stipulated period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order, a further condition is put on OP to pay these amounts within 30 days, failing which, to pay interest @6% per annum from today till payment.

7.             Therefore, as a sequel to the above discussion, complaint allowed ex-parte in terms that OP will pay compensation for mental harassment and agony of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) and litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) to complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Payment of amount of compensation and litigation expenses be made by OP to complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order, failing which complainant will be entitled to interest @6% per annum from today till payment on amount of compensation and litigation expenses. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules.

8.                File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                     (Vinod Gulati)                                (G.K. Dhir)

              Member                                        President

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:20.11.2018

Gurpreet Sharma.