DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

BATHINDA

C.C. No. 337 of 10-12-2018

Decided on : 30-09-2021

Baljinder Singh aged about 46 years S/o Sh. Darshan Singh R/o Ward No. 6, Village Nahianwala, Sub Tehsil Goniana Mandi. Tehsil & District Bathinda.

........Complainant

Versus

The Branch Manager, Punjab & Sind Bank, Branch Goniana Mandi, Tehsil & District Bathinda.

.......Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President.

Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur, Member.

Sh. Shivdev Singh, Member.

Present

For the complainant : Sh. Varun Bansal, Advocate.

For opposite party : Sh. Anil Gupta, Advocate.

ORDER

Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President

1. The complainant Baljinder Singh (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Now C.P. Act, 2019, here-in after referred to as 'Act') before this Forum (Now Commission) against The Branch Manager, Punjab & Sind Bank (here-in-after referred to as opposite party).

2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he is having current account No. 03821300090893 with the opposite party and maintaining his account as per rules and regulations of Bank.

3. It is alleged that complainant requested the opposite party to issue cheque book against his above said account and accordingly, opposite party issued cheque book to complainant and assured him that cheque book is updated in their system and he can do transactions. The complainant issued cheque No. 148954 dated 1-5-2018 and cheque No. 148957 dated 15-5-2018, for Rs. 5000/- each, both favouring Arun Electricals but both the cheques were dishonoured by bank. The complainant came to know that said cheques were dishonoured due to not updating cheque book of complainant in the system of the opposite party although the opposite party was duty bound to update the same in their system when it was issued. It is further alleged that due to negligence of the opposite party, the reputation of the complainant was lower down in the society and above said firm Arun Electrical stopped to supply the electrical appliances on credit basis to complainant. It is pleaded that complainant approached the opposite party several times and requested them to update the cheque book in their system, but to no effect. The complainant also got issued legal notice on 15-10-2018 to the opposite party, in this regard but despite that nothing was done by the opposite party.

4. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has filed this complaint with the prayer for directions to the opposite party to update the cheque book of complainant in the system and pay him Rs. 1,00,000/- as damages on account of harassment and humiliation besides litigation expenses.

5. Upon notice, the opposite party appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply. In written reply, the opposite party raised preliminary objections that complainant has no locus standi or cause of action; complainant is not consumer; this Commission has no jurisidction; complaint is bad for non-joint and mis-joinder of necessary parties; complainant is estopped from filing the present complaint; complicated questions of facts and law are involved in this case; there is no intentional or malafide negligence on the part of opposite party and that the complaint is false, frivolvous and vexatious to the knowledge of the complainant.

6. On merits, the opposite party has admitted that complainant has current account with the opposite party. It is pleaded that there is no intentional or malafide negligence on the part of the officials of the opposite party if there is any lapse in updating the cheque book in the system. The fault may be of the system. It is further pleaded that on coming to know about non-updating of cheque book in the system, immediately it was updated on 28-5-2018 and before issuance of legal notice by complainant, cheque No. 148959 passed for payment on 28-5-2018, cheque No. 148955 passed for payment on 26-7-2018 and cheque No. 148960 passed for payment on 3-8-2018. After controverting all other averments, the opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint.

7. In support of his complaint, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit dated 10-12-2018 (Ex. C-1), photocopies of cheques (Ex. C-2 & Ex. C-3), photocopy of complaint (Ex. C-4), photocopy of legal notice (Ex. C-5), photocopy of postal receipts (Ex. C-6 & Ex. C-7) and closed the evidence.

8. To rebut the evidence of complainant, opposite party tendered into evidence affidavit dated 30-1-2019 of Ashish Bansal, Branch Manager (Ex. C-1), photocopy of cheque leaf status inquiry (Ex. OP-1/2), photocopy of account statement (Ex. OP-1/3) and closed the evidence.

9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

10. In nutshell, the case of complainant is that he is having current account with the opposite party. He got issued cheque book against his account and issued cheque No. 148954 dated 1-5-2018 and cheque No. 148957 dated 15-5-2018 each for Rs. 5,000/- favouring Arun Electrical, which were dishonoured by the bank whereas he was having sufficient amount/balance in his account. Upon inquiry, he came to know that cheques were dishonoured as the cheque book issued by opposite party was not updated in their system. The opposite party admitted this fact but the plea of the opposite party is that said lapse occured due to some problem in the system of the bank and there was no fault on the part of any official of bank.

11. A perusal of file reveals that complainant issued first cheque on 1-5-2018 bearing No. 148954 for Rs. 5,000/- which was dishonoured by bank. The submission of learned counsel for complainant is that when complainant approached opposite party to know the reason for dishonour of this cheque, he was advised to make the payment in cash to solve the problem. The opposite party in reply in para No. 5 on merits, has admitted that on coming to know about above said non-updating of cheque book of complainant in the system, immediately it was updated in the system on 28-5-2018. Thus, this fact makes the position clear that opposite party did not try to redress the grievance of the complainant when fact regarding dishonour of first cheque came into their notice due to which complainant issued second cheque on 15-5-2018 bearing No. 148957 which was also dishonoured. This act of the opposite party shows negligence on their part. Therefore, plea taken by the opposite party that cheque book could not be updated due to problem in system is not tenable. It was the duty of the opposite party to enter the cheque book in their system before issuing the same to any customer/complainant, but in the case in hand, opposite party did not take any action or look into the matter despite dishonour of cheque due to which second cheque of complainant was also dishonoured. The complainant must have felt harassment and agony and this act of opposite party must have lowered his reputation when his cheques were dishonoured by bank despite having sufficient balance in his bank account. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in not providing service to its consumers despite charging service charges. Hence, the complainant is held entitled to compenstion for such sufferings.

12. In the result, this complaint is partly allowed. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- as cost and compensation to complainant within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

13. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases.

14. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record.

Announced:-

30-09-2021

(Kanwar Sandeep Singh)

President

(Sukhwinder Kaur)

Member

(Shivdev Singh)

Member