Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/20/2019

Brig. J.S. Saraon - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab National Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Navneet Jindal Adv. & Mahipal Singh Mann Adv.

28 Feb 2020

ORDER

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

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

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/20/2019
Date  of  Institution	:	10/01/2019
Date   of   Decision	:	28/02/2020

 

 

 

 

 

Brig. J.S. Saraon S/o Lt. Col. Harcharan Singh Saraon, Resident of H.No. 112, Sector 36-A, Chandigarh.

….Complainant

 

Vs.

 

 

1]   Punjab National Bank, Village Waraich, P.O. Baba Jaimal Singh, Amritsar – 143204, through its Manager/Branch Manager.

 

2]   The Punjab State Cooperative Bank Limited, SCO 211, Sector 36-D, Chandigarh, through its Manager/ Branch Manager.

…… Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:   SH. RATTAN SINGH THAKUR      PRESIDENT

          MRS.SURJEET KAUR             MEMBER

          SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA     MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Navneet Jindal, Counsel for Complainant.
	:	Opposite Party No.1 ex-parte.
	:	None for Opposite Party No.2.

 

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

 

 

 

In brief, the Complainant was the joint account holder with his father namely Lt. Col. Harcharan Singh. The account was being maintained since 01.07.2009. Complainant has issued the Cheque No.662731 dated 17.09.2018 amounting to Rs.2,00,000/- in the name of Jai Karan Singh Saraon, his own name, as he was in need of money which could not be withdrawn from PNB Bank for lack of ATM card. Moreover, the non-home branches do not allow withdrawal of amount more than Rs.50,000/-. He deposited this Cheque in this Corporation Bank Branch at Sector 36, Chandigarh. The said Cheque was dishonoured on 18.09.2018 with vague reason “Kindly contact Drawer/ Drawee Bank and please present again” (Annexure C-1). The Cheque was again presented at Chandigarh, but the same was again dishonoured with the same reason on 25.09.2018 (Annexure C-2). Bank not only dishonoured the Cheque with vague reason, but also deducted the amount of Rs.590/- on three occasions i.e. 18.09.2018, 21.09.2018 and 25.09.2018; whereas the Cheque was presented on two occasions. The Complainant accordingly got served a legal notice dated 17.10.2018 upon the Opposite Party No.1 (Annexure C-4), but to no success. When all the frantic efforts made by the Complainant, failed to fructify, as a measure of last resort, alleging that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties tantamount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the Complainant has filed the instant Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking various reliefs.

 

2.      Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.

 

3.      Opposite Party No.1, initially, appeared through Sh. Raj S. Jumiyal, Advocate on 01.07.2019 and thereafter, through Sh. Kanwar Jagtar Singh, Advocate on 21.08.2019, but subsequently as none appeared on behalf of the Opposite Party No.1, hence vide order dated 13.12.2019, Opposite Party No.1 was ordered to be proceeded against ex-parte.

 

4.      Opposite Party No.2 contested the Complaint and filed its reply, inter alia, pleading that it is merely a proforma party in the present case, in as much as, there is no deficiency in service on its part as the Cheque was duly presented thrice for clearance (Annexure OP.2/1 & OP.2/2). A prayer has therefore been made for dismissal of the complaint.

 

5.      The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

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

 

7.      Significantly, the Opposite Party No.1 did not appear to contest the claim of the complainant and preferred to proceed against ex-parte. This act of the Opposite Party No.1 draws an adverse inference against it.

 

8.      The non-appearance of the Opposite Party No.1 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 and uncontroverted.

 

9.      Per Annexure C-3, it is evident that the Cheque of the Complainant was presented thrice by the Opposite Party No.2 to Opposite Party No.1 and every time an amount of Rs.590/- was deducted from the account of the Complainant for dishonouring of Cheque on vague reason “Kindly contact Drawer/Drawee Bank and please present again”. Further perusal of Annexure C-3 makes its abundantly clear that the Complainant had enough balance in his account. Thus, the dishonour of the Cheque has not only brought disrepute to Complainant but also had caused financial loss to him. In these set of circumstances, it is established beyond all reasonable doubts that the complaint of the Complainant is genuine. The harassment suffered by the Complainant is also writ large. The Opposite Party No.1 has certainly and definitely indulged into unfair trade practice as it ought to have taken prompt steps to air the grievance of the Complainant, which they miserably failed to do and propelled this unwarranted, uncalled for litigation upon the Complainant.  Thus, finding a definite deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party No.1, we have no other alternative, but to allow the present complaint against the Opposite Party No.1.

 

10.      For the reasons recorded above, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Party No.1, and the same is partly allowed. The Opposite Party No.1 is directed:-

[a]  To refund Rs.1770/- charged on account of wrongful deduction of cheque dishonour charges;

[b]  To pay Rs.3,000/- as compensation to the complainant for deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and for causing harassment caused to him.

[c]  To also pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- to the complainant as litigation expenses. 

          The Complaint against Opposite Party No.2 fails and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. 

11.      The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by Opposite Party No.1; thereafter, Opposite Party No.1 shall be liable for an interest @9% per annum on the amounts mentioned in sub-para [a] & [b] above from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, apart from cost of litigation as in sub-para [c].

 

12.      The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

28^th February, 2020                                 

Sd/-

(RATTAN SINGH THAKUR)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

MEMBER

Sd/-

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

MEMBER

 

 “Dutt”