Punjab

StateCommission

CC/452/2018

Jasbir singh Bhopal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab and Sind Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Raj Kumar Gupta

11 Feb 2019

ORDER

                                                               FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,      PUNJAB

          SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.

 

                   Consumer Complaint No.452 of 2018

 

                                                          Date of Institution   : 24.05.2018     

                                                         Order Reserved on : 08.02.2019

                                                          Date of Decision     : 11.02.2019

 

Jasbir Singh Bhogal aged  58 years son of late S.Gurdial Singh Bhogal, resident of House No.1712/9, New Deep Nagar, Haibowal Kalan, Chuharpur, Ludhiana.

                                                                                                                                                                                                 ….Complainant

                                      Versus

 

1. Punjab & Sind Bank,Kailash Cinema Chowk, Ludhiana, through its Chief Manager.
2. The Zonal Manager, Punjab & Sind Bank, Opposite Park Plaza, Near Bhai Bala Chowk, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana.
3. The Chairman & Managing Director Punjab & Sind Bank.

Head Office: PSBBuilding, Office : 21,Rajinder Palace, New Delhi 110008

4.The General Manager, Punjab & Sind Bank, Head Office : PSB

   Building, Office : 21, Rajindra Palace, New Delhi 110008

 

                                                                                  ….Opposite parties

 

Consumer Complaint U/s 17(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended up to date).

Quorum:-

          Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.

              Shri. Rajinder Kumar Goyal, Member.

Present:-For the complainant         :  Sh.R.K.Gupta, Advocate

          For opposite parties         :   Sh.I.P Singh, Advocate

         

J. S. KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

                                     

                 The complainant has filed this complaint U/s 17(1) (a) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (in short the "Act) against OPs on the allegations, that he was having saving bank account with OP no.1/bank bearing a/c no.01451000009537 and he was issued a cheque book containing leaves no.849221 to 849240 bearing CTS no.CTS-SB/30 in the month of October 2014 by the OP/bank and also supplied his mobile no.98150-03721 to OP no.1 for its registration. The son of the complainant Tejinder Singh alias Sunny had been depositing amounts in his above mentioned saving account in Haibowal Branch of Punjab & Sind Bank from time to time. A sum of more than Rs.35,22,518.59 was lying deposited in his account with OP no.1 in the month of May 2016. On 29.06.2016, he received a message from OP no.1/bank that a hefty amount has been withdrawn from his above saving bank account. He was surprised to receive that message, since he had not made any such withdrawal from his above account. He visited personally in OP no.3/bank along with his cheque book and other records and met Paramjit Chief Manager, who disclosed him that a total sum of Rs.28,45,000/- has been withdrawn from his account through three cheques bearing no.849227 of Rs.9,85,000/- by Narinder Kumar, cheque no.849222 of Rs.9,85,000/- by Braj Pal and cheque no.849223 of  Rs.8,75,000/- by one Mohit Kamboj. He never issued alleged cheques to above said persons and he apprised this fact to chief manager of OP no.3-bank, which showed one cheque no.849222 to him through which amount of Rs.9,85,000/- was withdrawn by Braj Pal and he was shocked to see that it was   bearing no.CTS-SB/22 , whereas the cheque book issued to him was bearing no.CTS-SB/30.  It was further averred in the complaint that CTS-SB/22 cheque book was never issued to him by the OP/bank. Later on, he came to know that all the above said cheques, through which the amount of Rs.28,45,000/- was debited by OP no.3/Bank  from the account of complainant, were not issued by OP no.3 to him nor he issued said cheques, nor he signed the same. Even the signatures on the said three cheques did not tally with the standard signatures of the complainant, as provided in the bank record by him.  The amount of the said cheques was debited from his account due to negligence and deficiency in service of the officials of OPs.  The complainant made various complaints to various Forums in this regard, but nothing concrete came out of the same. He also served a legal notice dated 16.11.2017 upon OPs, but of no use. It was further averred by him that OPs have admitted this fact that they were cloned cheques,  which were wrongly encashed and same were not issued by the complainant nor signed by him too. The complainant also moved an application to Commissioner of Police Ludhiana about this matter and FIR was also registered to this effect in the concerned police station. The above amount of Rs.28.45 lac has not been paid back to him inspite of fulfilling all formalities and submissions of documents by him to OPs, as demanded by them.  He suffered mental harassment due to above said deficient act of OPs. Hence, he filed complaint and prayed for below noted reliefs against OPs :-

1. OPs be directed to pass the order for payment of Rs.28,45,000/- along with interest of 24% per annum till release of the payment and Rs.10,00,000/- for damages to the complainant.
2. OPs be directed to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for mental harassment as well as cost of litigation to the complainant.

2.            Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant by raising preliminary objections that complicated questions of facts and law are involved in this case, which can be adjudicated by way of regular civil court only in regular proceedings and not by Consumer Forum in summary proceedings. The complaint is bad for mis-joinder as well as non-joinder of necessary parties. The complainant has made false averments in the complaint and it was a case of concealment of facts on his part. As per banking norms, request for activation of SMS facility was to be made by an account holder by making a request in writing on a specific format and said facility was chargeable too. The complainant has failed to submit his mobile number and availed the SMS alert facility, as such, there was no possibility on the part of OP no.1 to send any SMS alert regarding debit of disputed amounts and there cannot be any case of deficiency in service on the part of OPs.  The complainant approached OP no.1 after the amount in question had already been debited from his account and thereafter all the necessary steps were taken as per banking norms by the OPs. The investigation was conducted in this matter. The details from Allhabad Bank, State Bank of India and Vijaya Bank pertaining to the account of beneficiaries were sought  and they were apprised of the complaint made by complainant regarding amounts debited from his account and credited in the aforesaid three accounts. The complainant  submitted some of the documents in this regard and same were duly forwarded to the concerned authorities. He was also requested to submit the original cheques no.849222, 849223 and 849227, which were required by the Head Office for the settlement of the claim. The communication in this regard  was received from Zonal Office, vide letter dated 19.10.2016 and complainant was requested in this regard, vide letter dated 21.10.2016. The complainant, vide letter dated 25.10.2016, gave reply that cheque no.849222 was destroyed by him. The cheque no.849223 was issued by him in favour of Max India Insurance Company and cheque no.849227 was with him in original. The claim of the complainant was approved by competent authority of the OP- bank for an amount of Rs.28,45,000/- as per applicable guidelines. The complainant submitted the indemnity bond and letter of satisfaction dated 09.04.2018 along with documents. He was also required to deposit the original cheques in dispute as per terms and conditions of the sanction. He also made declaration  regarding these cheques.  As per record, he gave false declaration regarding status of the original cheques. As per norms of the bank, the documents submitted by complainant were required to be put up before Retainer counsel for the bank for his opinion and further compliance. I.P Singh Advocate retainer counsel of the bank gave his opinion that indemnity bond as well as letter of satisfaction were defective and same were not even attested by the Executive Magistrate and it was simply written as ‘signature attested by notary’ and same could not be considered as an ‘indemnity bond’. The complainant has not yet submitted the requisite indemnity bond, letter of satisfaction  as well as the original cheuqes,  due to which amount of Rs.28,45,000/- sanctioned by competent authority of OPs/Bank could not be released to him. OPs controverted the other averments of the complainant even on merits and they prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

3.                The complainant relied upon Annexure C-1 to C-15 documents in support of his case. As against it; OPs relied upon Ex.O-1 to Ex.O-15 in support of their case in evidence.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties extensively and have also examined the record of the case. The pleadings of the parties have been duly scanned by us. The documents relied upon by the parties have also been scrutinized by us with the able assistance of counsel for the parties. The complainant testified in his affidavit on the record that he opened the account with OP no.1/bank and was issued cheque book in the month of October 2004 containing leaves no.849221 to 849240 bearing CTS No.CTS-SB/30 against saving bank account no.01451000009537. Ex.C-1 is statement of account on the record. The version of the complainant, as unfolded in his testimony is that amount of Rs.28,45,000/- has been illegally withdrawn from his account by OP no.1/bank out of which Rs.9,85,000/- has been withdrawn by one Narinder Kumar on the basis of cheque bearing no.849227, amount of Rs.9,85,000/- has been withdrawn by Braj Pal on basis of cheque bearing no. 849222 and amount of Rs.8,75,000/- has been withdrawn by Mohit Kamboj on the basis of cheque bearing no.849223. He has stated that above referred cheques were not issued by him nor these cheques were issued by OP no.1 to him. He stated that he was astonished to find that it was cheque  book no.CTS-SB/22, whereas cheque book issued to him by the bank was bearing no.CTS-SB/30. He categorically stated that cheque bearing no.CTS-SB/22 was never issued by OP/bank to him. He further stated that above  referred amount belonging to him has been illegally withdrawn on the basis of above fake cheques. He proved the photographs of cheques issued to him, vide Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-4 bearing no.CTS-SB/30. It has appeared in his statement that cloned and fake cheques were used for illegal withdrawal of his amount vide Ex.C-5 to Ex.C-7. He served a legal notice dated 16.11.2017 upon OPs regarding their alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. OPs gave reply thereto, vide Ex.C-10. He further deposed that OPs admitted that the cheques used in this case are cloned and fake cheques as used for  illegal withdrawal of his amount, which were wrongly encashed by the bank. He moved request to Commissioner of Police  about this illegal withdrawal, vide Ex.C-11 and FIR was registered with police, vide Ex.C-12 for this offence. He seeks refund of his deposited amount by the bank in this case, which has been since retrieved by OP/bank. He relied upon Ex.C-14 legal opinion of Gaganpreet Singh Advocate of OPs for releasing the amount to him.  

5.                 OPs also relied upon their own evidence on the record in support of their averments. Sukhdeep Kaur Branch Manager Punjab & Sind Bank  Civil Lines Ludhiana placed on record her affidavit in this case. She admitted this fact that it is a matter of record  that amount has been debited  from the account of complainant on the basis of above three disputed cheques.  Cheque no.849222 dated 24.05.2016 of Rs.9.85 lac favouring Braj Pal was presented for collection through Allahabad Bank, Ludhiana  and passed on 27.05.2016. She further deposed that cheque no.849223 dated 06.06.2016 of Rs.8.75 lac in favour Mohit Kamboj was presented for collection through Vijaya Bank Karnal and passed on 09.06.2016 and amount was credited in his account. The cheque no.849227 dated 23.05.2016 of Rs.9.85 lac favouring Narender was presented for collection through State Bank of India Karnal  and this cheque was passed on 26.05.2016 and amount was credited in his account. These cheques were cleared by the concerned branches of the Punjab & Sind Bank with due diligence as per norms applicable in this regard. She denied any negligence on the part of OPs in this case. She further deposed that complainant while opening account did not submit his mobile number to OPs. Ex.OP-1 is copy of account opening form submitted by complainant with OP no.1.  The complainant submitted his request for SMS alert, while giving his mobile number on 29.06.2016.  The communication in this regard was received from Zonal office, vide letter dated 19.10.2016 and complainant was also requested in this regard, vide letter dated 21.10.2016 vide Ex.O-3.  The complainant stated that cheque no.849222 was destroyed by him, whereas cheque no.849223 was issued in favour of Max India Insurance Company and cheque no.849227 was with him in original. A copy of the circular no.147/2016 dated 06.01.2016 is regarding settlement of customers claim in fraud cases, vide Ex.OP-5 on the record. Zonal office Ludhiana, vide letter dated 30.01.2018 communicated to OP no.1 i.e. Branch Office Civil Lines Ludhiana in this regard for compliance. Copy of indemnity bond, letter of satisfaction and other documents submitted by complainant are Ex.OP-7 (colly). A copy of legal opinion of Gagandeep Singh Advocate dated 09.05.2018 for OPs submitted by complainant is Ex.O-8.  Copy of legal opinion dated 04.06.2018 is Ex.O-10.  Mr. I.P Singh Advocate retainer counsel gave his opinion Ex.O-9 that indemnity bond as well as letter of satisfaction were defective and same were not even attested by Executive Magistrate and it was simply written as ‘signature attested by Notary.’ Copy of his legal opinion dated 04.06.2018 is Ex.O-10.

6.                 From conclusion of above referred evidence on the record and hearing respective submissions of counsel for the parties, we find that OP/bank has recovered the illegal withdrawal from the account of the complainant by using three fake cheques. There is no dispute of this fact that complainant was not issued the cheques for withdrawal of the amount as wrongly used in this case.  The amount of Rs.28,45,000/-  has been withdrawn by means of fake cheques from his account with OP no.1/bank. The bank has no objection in release of this amount to him and is only stickler to this effect that he must furnish the indemnity bond in proper form with his satisfaction letter. The bone of contention thus boiled down between the parties is only with regard to above facts. Undoubtedly, money belongs to complainant and he  is entitled to this amount, which was illegally withdrawn from his account due to negligence of OPs by means of above cloned and fake cheques. The proper procedure has not been maintained leading to wrongful withdrawal of this amount from the account of the complainant.. Whatever circumstances of the case  may be, the complainant is held entitled to credit the illegal withdrawal of Rs.28,45,000/- from his account alongwith interest which accrued thereon as admissible as per RBI rules. OPs insisted upon the complainant for issuance of indemnity bond and satisfaction letter to safeguard their own interest in this case, which requirement of OPs is not found to be against rules.

7.                 In view of above circumstances of the case, we accept the complaint of the complainant and direct the OPs to pay the amount of Rs.28,45,000/- to complainant as illegally withdrawn from his account with interest accrued thereupon as admissible as per RBI rules from the date of withdrawal till its actual payment. The complainant is also held entitled to recover composite amount of compensation and cost of litigation of Rs.70,000/- from OPs in this case. It is made clear that complainant is to furnish indemnity bond and satisfaction letter to OP/bank, attested by Executive Magistrate  to safeguard the interest of OP/bank with regard to this disputed amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and OP/bank shall pay the above amount to complainant along with interest within five days thereafter.

8.                   Arguments in this complaint were heard on 08.02.2019 and the order was reserved. Certified copies of the order be communicated to the parties under rules.

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

 

                                                                          (J. S. KLAR)

                                                             PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

                               

                                                              (RAJINDER KUMAR GOYAL)

                                                                                MEMBER

February 11, 2019                                                         

(ravi)