Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/465/2015

Ashok Kumar Shukla - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab National Bank - Opp.Party(s)

K.L. Saini

23 Aug 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/465/2015
Date  of  Institution	:	23/07/2015
Date   of   Decision	:	23/08/2017

 

 

 

 

 

Ashok Kumar Shukla S/o Sh. Harparshad Shukla, R/o S.C.F. No. 30, 1^st Floor, Sector 16-D, Chandigarh.

…… Complainant.

 

VERSUS

 

1)   Punjab National Bank, Sector 16-D, Chandigarh, through its Manager.

 

2)   TATA AIG, Insurance Company, 2^nd Floor, SCO 232-234, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh, through its Manager.

 

3)   Jagat Singh, (Address will be disclosed by the Opposite Party No.4) – [Deleted vide order dated 07.04.2016].

 

4)   Zile Sahkari Bank, Plot No.7, Village Mamura, Sector 66, Noida, through its Manager.

 

………… Opposite Parties.

 

BEFORE:   SMT.SURJEET KAUR             PRESIDING MEMBER

          SH.SURESH KUMAR SARDANA      MEMBER

 

Argued by: Sh. K.L. Saini, Counsel for Complainant.

            Sh. Ajay Sapehia, Counsel for Opposite Party No.1.

            None for Opposite Party No.2.

            Opposite Party No.3 deleted.

            Opposite Party No.4 ex-parte.

 

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

 

          Briefly stated, the Complainant was having an S/B Account No. 0575000100255266 with the Opposite Party No.1. On 15.05.2015, he issued Cheque NO. 851105 amounting to Rs.1,00,000/- in favour of TATA AIG for the premium of the Policy held by him. It has been alleged that the said amount was transferred/debited in the account of some other person namely Jagat Singh, who withdrew the same. Accordingly, the Complainant wrote to the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 to credit Rs.1,00,000/- in his account, but to no avail. Hence, alleging the aforesaid act & conduct of the Opposite Parties as deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the Complainant has filed the present Complaint.

 

2.      Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case. However, nobody appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.4 despite service, therefore, it was proceeded ex-parte. Whereas, in view of the endorsement made by the learned Counsel for the Complainant, on the Complaint itself, the name of Opposite Party No.3 was ordered to be deleted from the array of Opposite Parties, vide order dated 07.04.2016.

 

3.      Opposite Party No.1, in its reply, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, has pleaded that if Complainant had issued the Cheque and handed over the same to TATA AIG, then how it came in possession of Opposite Party No.3 who got encashed the same. Moreover, the Cheque was dated 15.05.2015, cleared on 20.05.2015 and Complainant had raised objection only on 09.06.2015. It has been asserted that whenever Complainant visited the answering Opposite Party, he was properly attended and he was fully satisfied. In fact, Complainant himself was not sure that to whom he had given the Cheque in question. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, Opposite Party No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4.      Opposite Party No.2, in its written statement, has pleaded that it did not issue any Policy to the Complainant and it was totally unware of any payment being made by the Complainant to any one on its behalf. Furthermore, there no cause of action whatsoever accrued against the answering Opposite Party, as the alleged dispute was between the Complainant and the Opposite Parties No.1 and 4. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, Opposite Party No.2 have prayed for dismissal of the complaint

 

5.      Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record in support of their contentions.

 

6.      We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record with utmost care and circumspection.

 

7.      The main grievance of the Complainant is that Cheque for Rs.1,00,000/- issued by him to Opposite Party No.2 was wrongly got credited by Opposite Party No.3 by presenting the same with the Opposite Party No.4 where Opposite Party No.3 was maintaining the account. The main allegation of the Complainant is that due care was not taken by the Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.4 while passing of the Cheque and disbursal of the amount.

 

8.      The stand taken by Opposite Party No.1 is that at the time of clearing of the Cheque by them, only image is received and on the basis of image any alteration cannot be examined and they have also taken the stand that it is the duty of the Bank (Opposite Party No.4) which present the Cheque for clearing to deal with such kind of issues before presenting the Cheque for clearing and ensured that there is no fraud, forgery or tampering apparent on the face of the instrument. To substantiate their stand, the Opposite Party No.1 has annexed Annexure R-4 which are procedural guidelines for Cheque Truncation System (CTS), wherein as per para 3.1 of the said guidelines it is very clearly mentioned that the presenting Bank (OP No.4) takes full responsibility for collecting on behalf of the intended payee and exercise due diligence.  Importantly, the Opposite Party No.4 did not appear to contest the claim of the complainant as well as the stand taken by the Opposite Party No.1 against it, and preferred to proceed against ex-parte. This act of the Opposite Party No.4 draws an adverse inference against it. The non-appearance of the Opposite Party No.4 shows that it has nothing to say in its defence against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions of the complainant go unrebutted & uncontroverted.

 

9.      For the reasons recorded above, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Party No.4, and the same is allowed. The Opposite Party No.4 is directed to:-

 

[a]  Pay Rs.1,00,000/- to the Complainant;

 

[b]  Pay Rs7,000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and physical harassment to the Complainant; 

 

[c] Pay Rs.5,000/-towards costs of litigation;

          The complaint against Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 fails and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. 

10.      The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Party No.4; thereafter, Opposite Party No.4 shall be liable for an interest @12% per annum on the amounts mentioned in sub-paras [a] & [b] above from the date of institution of this Complaint, till it is paid, apart from costs of litigation mentioned in sub-para [c] above. 

 

11.      Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

23^rd August, 2017                                              Sd/- 

(SURJEET KAUR)

   PRESIDING MEMBER

 

                                            Sd/-   

 (SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)                                                                                                      MEMBER