Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/18/315

Dalip Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab National Bank - Opp.Party(s)

SM Gulati adv

29 Jan 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 315 dated 08.05.2018.                                                        Date of decision: 29.01.2021. 

 

Dalip Kumar Saggi, aged 60 years so of Shri Baij Nath Saggi, Resident of House No.60, Guru Nanak Nagar Extension, Haibowal Kalan, Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                                                                                                ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

Punjab National Bank, Kailash Chowk Branch, Ludhiana through its Chief Manager.                                                                                                                                                                                           …..Opposite party 

Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

MS. JYOTSNA THATAI, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Dalip Kumar Saggi in person.

For OP                           :         Exparte.

 

ORDER

PER K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

1.                This complaint under Section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after in short to be referred as ‘Act’) has been filed by the above named complainant on the allegations that he maintains a saving account no.0297000100499117 with OP. Originally, the said account was in the name of Dalip Kumar. Later on, the complainant got his name corrected in the records from Dalip Kumar to Dalip Kumar Saggi. As the name was got changed,  the complainant submitted his Adhar card as proof of identity and address, which was accepted by the OP and necessary correction was made in the record of the OP bank. The complainant was further asked to provide fresh specimen signatures in view of change in his name. Thereafter, the complainant issued cheque No.197440 for a sum of Rs.23,433/- in favour of Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., which was cleared by the bank. Subsequent to that, the complainant issued cheque bearing No.197425 in favour of Ludhiana Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. towards the installments of some loan. The said cheque was presented with the bank on 21.10.2016, but the same was dishonoured by the OP though the complainant was having sufficient funds in his account. OP also charged a sum of Rs.345/- on account of cheque returning charges for the reason ‘signatures differs’, though the cheque was given with the changed specimen signatures. The cheque was presented for encashment by the Ludhiana Central Cooperative Bank for as many as four times, but every time it was returned by the OP and a sum of Rs.345/- was charged on each occasion. The complainant had also withdrawn a sum of Rs.5,000/- vide cheque No.197442. The complainant has further alleged that as the officials of the bank failed to feed the changed signatures in the computer system, this resulted in returning of the cheque and the action of the OP clearly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Due to bouncing of the cheque, the reputation and honour of the complainant was lowered in the eyes of the officials of Ludhiana Central Cooperative Bank. In the end, it has been requested that the OP be called upon to tender an unconditional written apology and to reimburse the cheque returning charges realized from the complainant. The complainant has further demanded a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-  on account of harassment and agony faced by him on account of wrongful dishonor of the cheque by the OP.

2.                Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of the OP bank, as a result, the OP was proceeded against exparte.

3.                In exparte evidence, the complainant submitted his affidavit Ex. CA along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C9 and closed the evidence.

4.                We have heard the counsel for the complainant and have gone through the written arguments submitted by him.

5.                In this case, the exparte evidence led by the complainant has gone unrebutted as the OP bank has not chosen to contest the case. Even otherwise, it has come in evidence that due to non feeding of the changed signature of the computer system of the OP bank, the cheque bearing No.197425 issued by the complainant in favor of Ludhiana Central Cooperative Bank was dishonoured on 21.10.2016. Not only this, an amount of Rs.345/- was debited to the account of the complainant on account of cheque returning charges. The cheque in question was presented for encashment as many as four times and every times, it was returned and a sum of Rs.345/- was debited to the account of the complainant. Dishonour of the cheque must have definitely caused embarrassment to the complainant. This clearly amounts deficiency in service on the part of OP bank.

6.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint is allowed with an order that the OP shall refund the charges debited on account of returning of the cheque bearing No.197425 to the complainant. OP shall further pay a composite compensation of Rs.7,000/- (Rupees Seven Thousand only) to the complainant within 30 days, failing which OP1 will pay the same with interest @7% per annum from the date of order till actual payment. Compliance of order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.     

 

                    (Jyotsna Thatai)                                       (K.K. Kareer)

            Member                                                   President

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:29.01.2021.

Gobind Ram.