Haryana

StateCommission

A/354/2021

DAYANAND - Complainant(s)

Versus

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK - Opp.Party(s)

SATVIR SINGH

20 Dec 2021

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA

First Appeal No.354 of 2021

Date of Institution:06.12.2021

                                                           Date of Decision:20.12.2021

 

Shri Dayanand S/o Shri Mange Ram, R/o House No.749/29(near Saheed Bhagat Singh Park), Gali No.2, Vikas Nagar, Kakrio Road, Sonepat-131001 through his Power of Attorney.

….Appellant

Versus

 

Punjab National  Bank, Main Branch, Hindu College Building, Sonepat-131001,through its Manager.                             

                                                   ……Respondent

 

CORAM:-  Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.P.S. Mann, President.

Mrs. Manjula, Member.

 

Present:-   Shri Vikas Gulia, counsel for the appellant.

                   

O R D E R

 

MRS. MANJULA, MEMBER:

                  

                   Dayanand (Complainant) is in appeal against the impugned order dated 26.10.2021, passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Sonepat (for short ‘learned District Commission’), whereby the complaint filed by complainant was dismissed being time barred.

2.                The brief facts of the complaint emerges as under that the complainant was having his saving bank account with the respondent (Bank) and on 14.11.2012, an amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty thousand only) from the account of complainant were transferred to account No.245096 through combo voucher No.M-245528 without signature of the complainant in Punjab National Bank, Branch Sujan Singh Park, Old D.C. Road, Sonepat. Thereafter, the complainant enquired about this transaction, but none has told the true facts about transaction. It was alleged that the complainant wrote a letter to PNB Headquarter under RTI Act and in response to the information sought under RTI, it was informed “transfer of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty thousand only) from the account of complainant through combo voucher is not valid as it was done without the signature of the account holder” which amounts to fraudulant transaction. Thereafter, the then Branch Manager called the account holder namely Shri Mahender Kumar Gupta for settlement of the case and he was ready to return the amount alongwith interest to the complainant, but no amount was returned by him to the complainant. Complainant also served a legal notice dated 11.03.2020 upon the respondent, but no reply was received on behalf of respondent. Thus, there was deficiency in service on the part of respondent.

3.                Upon notice, none had put in appearance on behalf of respondent before learned District Commission and on 17.03.2021, the respondent was proceeded against ex-parte.

4.                After hearing the learned counsel for complainant, learned District Commission, Sonepat dismissed the complaint of complainant  being time barred as mentioned above.

5.                Feeling aggrieved therefrom, complainant-appellant has preferred the present appeal.

6.                Arguments have been advanced by Shri Vikas Gulia, learned counsel for the appellant. With his kind assistance entire records including whatever the evidence has been led on behalf of complainant has also been properly perused and examined.

7.                While unfolding the arguments, it has been vehemently argued by Shri Vikas Gulia, learned counsel for the appellant that on 14.11.2012, an amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty thousand only) was transferred from his saving account to account No.0245096 without his signature and in RTI, the Headquarter of Punjab National Bank has clearly mentioned that the transfer of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty thousand only) from the account of complainant to account No.0245096 on 14.11.2012 was not valid as it was done without the signature of the complainant (account holder). It is further argued that respondent was served upon legal notice dated 11.03.2020, but no reply was received on its behalf.

8.                From the perusal of record it reveals that the cause of action accrued in favour of the complainant on 14.11.2012 and the complainant should have filed the complaint within a period of two years i.e. up to 13.11.2014, but the complaint was filed on 27.01.2021 which shows an inordinate delay. If accepted, there will be inundation of such like cases. Its like sleeping over the issue for long years and then waking up suddenly from hybernation.

9.                During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant taken a plea that complaint was filed within limitation period as legal notice was sent to the respondent on 11.03.2020. In this regard, it is pertinent to mention here that the appellant has not placed on record any receipt of legal notice dated 11.03.2020, served upon the respondent as alleged. So, mere statement without any evidence to prove its authenticity amounts to hoaxed statement.

10.              In view of the above, no case is made out to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned District Commission, Sonepat. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed being without merits.

 

December 20^th, 2021                      (Manjula)                               (T.P.S. Mann)

                                                            Member                                 President                                                     

R.K.