Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/20/138

Gurmukh Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab National Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Gurmukh Singh

26 Aug 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No:138 dated 13.08.2020.                                                        Date of decision: 26.08.2022.

 

Gurmukh Singh Atwal S/o. Sh. Sarabjit Singh, R/o. H. No.8919, St. No.35, Kot Mangal Singh, Janta Nagar, Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                                ..…Complainant 

•  

 

1. Punjab National Bank formerly known as Oriental Bank of Commerce, 3^rd Floor, Dhanraj Singh Complex, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana through its Asst. General Manager and Deputy General Manager.         
2. Punjab National Bank formerly known as Oriental Bank of Commerce, Branch Office Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana through its Branch Manager.
3. Punjab National Bank, Branch Office Haibowal Kalan, Ludhiana through its Branch Manager.   
4. Punjab National Bank, Regional Processing Centre (RPC), Branch Jalandhar through its Senior Manager C/o. Punjab National Bank, Branch office Haibowal Kalan, Ludhiana through its Branch Manager.                                                                                         …..Opposite parties 

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant            :         Sh. Gurmukh Singh Atwal in person.

For OPs                         :         Sh. Vyom Bansal, Advocate.

 

 

 

 

 

ORDER

PER K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

1.                In brief, the case of the complainant is that he is an Advocate practicing at District Courts, Ludhiana. The complainant maintains a savings bank account with Oriental Bank of Commerce, Feroze Gandhi Market for the last many years and the balance in the said account of the complainant was Rs.3,23,447.12 as on 20.11.2019.

2.                It is further alleged that one Sandeep Kaur Sidhu took a friendly loan from the complainant for an amount of Rs.1,70,000/- and promised to return the said amount within a short period of time. She issued cheque No.165495 dated 15.11.2019 in favour of the complainant for an amount of Rs.1,70,000/- to discharge her liability towards the complainant. The said cheque was drawn at Punjab National Bank, Haibowal Kalan branch, Ludhiana, arrayed as OP3 in this case. The complainant deposited the said cheque with OP2 on 21.11.2019. The said cheque was cleared on 22.11.2019 and the amount of Rs.1,70,000/- was credited into the complainant’s account. On 24.11.2019, the complainant tried to withdraw some amount from his account using his ATM card but was astonished to find that only an amount of Rs.1,53,447.12 was available while the remaining amount of Rs.3,40,000/- was not available in his account as is evident from the ATM receipt.

3.                It is further alleged that on 25.11.2019, the complainant contacted OP2 about the status of the amount of Rs.3,40,000/- upon which the manager of OP2 told the complainant that he had committed forgery and had deposited the forged cheque of Rs.1,70,000/- with OP2 due to which the bank had created a lien of Rs.3,40,000/-. The Manager namely Harpal Singh further told the complainant that the cheque presented by him was of Rs.10,000/- and not Rs.1,70,000/- and the complainant had illegally and fraudulently converted the cheque of Rs.10,000/- into a cheque of Rs.1,70,000/-. Thereafter, on 28.11.2019, OP2 in connivance with OP1, OP3 and OP4 fraudulently and illegally returned the amount of Rs.1,70,000/- from the account of the complainant to Sandeep Kaur Sidhu in her account maintained with OP3. The complainant approached the officials of OP2 to return him the original cheque along with memo but they kept on putting off the matter on one pretext or the other. Ultimately, Ms. Akanksha, an employee of OP2 handed over the original cheque to the complainant but without a cheque returning memo saying that the cheque was not dishonoured. Subsequently, the Manager of OP2 issued a forged and frivolous memo issued by OP3 and OP4 which was not even addressed to the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant has been asking the OPs about the fate of the amount of Rs.1,70,000/- but without any fruitful result. The complainant got served a legal notice dated 25.02.2020 calling upon the OPs to return the amount of Rs.1,70,000/- which was illegally refunded by OP1 and OP2 in connivance with OP3 and OP4 in to Sandeep Kaur Sidhu but instead of returning the amount, the OPs sent a false and frivolous reply dated 29.02.2020. This amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. In the end, it has been requested that the OPs be directed to pay the cheque amount of Rs.1,70,000/- illegally debited from his account and further the OPs be directed to pay a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- as compensation for having caused mental tension, harassment and agony to the complainant by creating a lien on the mount of Rs.3,40,000/- out of the total amount of Rs.4,93,447.12 and also for fraudulently and illegally debiting the amount of Rs.1,70,000/- in his account and returning the same to Sandeep Kaur Sidhu.

4.                The complaint has been resisted by the OP1 to OP4. In the joint written statement filed on behalf of the OPs, it has been, inter alia, pleaded that the complainant deposited cheque dated 15.11.2019 for a sum of Rs.1,70,000/- issued by Sandeep Kaur Sidhu from her account maintained with OP3. The said cheque was sent for clearing and after having been cleared the amount was credited in the account of the complainant on 22.11.2019. However, on 22.11.2019 itself, the drawer of the cheque Sandeep Kaur Sidhu herself moved an application with OP4 stating that her cheque No.165495 had been misused by the complainant and the amount has been manipulated from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.1,70,000/-. As a result, on the same day OP4 as per instructions of the drawer of the cheque initiated counter return of the cheque and recalled the funds from the collecting bank through OP1. OP2, upon receiving the emails of OP1 and OP3, marked a lien over the cheque amount of Rs.1,70,000/- in the account of the complainant and, thereafter, on 23.11.2019 and 24.11.2019 were holidays on account of 4^th Saturday and Sunday respectively. The complainant visited branch of OP2 on 25.11.2019 and all the information along with the scan copy of the cheque along with memo dated 22.11.2019 and the letter written by Sandeep Kaur Sidhu was provided to him. On 28.11.2019, the original cheque and memo were received by OP2 and the amount of Rs.1,70,000/- was debited in the account of the complainant and returned to the service branch for onward remittance to OP4. The complainant received the original cheque and memo and copy of letter from OP2 on 03.12.2019. Thereafter, the complainant lodged a complaint on 20.01.2020 with RBI who referred the same with the complaint cell of then Oriental Bank of Commerce which was further sent to OP2. OP2 sent  reply dated 29.01.2020 to the complainant through registered cover but the said envelop was received undelivered with the report of addressee left. Thereafter, the complainant preferred a complaint with Banking Ombudsman vide complaint No.201920007019485 vide order dated 07.04.2020. The Ombudsman closed the complaint. Thus, the OPs have acted in accordance with the rules and are not be guilty of any deficiency of service in any manner. It has also been claimed that the complaint against the OPs is not maintainable and the complaint has deliberately not impleaded Sandeep Kaur as party in the present complaint who was a necessary party and her presence was necessary. The rest of the allegations made in the complaint have been denied as wrong and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has also been made.

5.                The complainant filed replication to the written statement filed by OP1 to OP4 reiterating the averments made in the complainant and controverting those made in the written statement.

6.                In evidence, the complainant submitted his affidavit Ex. CA along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C19 and closed the evidence.

7.                On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs tendered affidavit Ex. RA Sh. Pardeep Sharma, Branch Manager of Punjab National Bank, Haibowal branch, Ludhiana and affidavit Ex. RB of Sh. Harpal Singh, Branch Manager of Punjab National Bank, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana along with documents Ex. R1 to Ex. R6 and closed the evidence.

8.                We have heard the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 

9.                During the course of arguments, the counsel for the complainant has argued that the OPs have acted illegally and arbitrarily by debiting the amount of the cheque in the account of the complainant and refunding the same to Sandeep Kaur Sidhu. According to the counsel for the complainant, the OPs were at least required to issue a notice to the complainant before returning the amount of the cheque to Sandeep Kaur Sidhu. The counsel for the complainant has further referred to Section 18 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 which says that if the amount undertaken or ordered to be paid is stated differently in figures and in words, the amount stated in words shall be the amount undertaken or ordered to be paid. The counsel for the complainant has further referred to the copy of the cheque Ex. C2 wherein, according to him, the amount of Rs.1,70,000/- has been clearly written in figures. The counsel for the complainant has further pointed out that there is no overwriting or any manipulation in the cheque from the amount mentioned therein either in figures or in the digits. Therefore, the action of the OPs in returning the amount of cheque to Sandeep Kaur Sidhu merely on her instructions or the plea that the complainant had manipulated the amount from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.1,70,000/- cannot be justified. The counsel for the complainant has further pointed out that not only this, the OPs debited amount of Rs.1,70,000/-  from his account but also created the lien of an extra amount of Rs.1,70,000/- as is mentioned in the transaction slip Ex. C3 which shows that the amount available in the account was Rs.1,53,125.12 whereas in fact, it should be more than Rs.3,00,000/-. The counsel for the complainant has further contended that the OPs be penalized for deficiency of service and be made to refund the amount of Rs.1,70,000/- along with compensation and damages as prayed for in the complaint.

10.              On the other hand, the counsel for the OPs has argued that the amount of the cheque was debited in the account of the complainant and refunded to the drawer of the cheque Sandeep Kaur Sidhu strictly in accordance with banking norms and on this account, the OPs cannot be said to have committed any deficiency of service. According to the counsel for the OPs, the cheque amount was returned on the instructions of the drawer of the cheque who gave in writing to OP4 that she had issued a cheque of Rs.10,000/- only and the complainant had manipulated and converted it into a cheque of Rs.1,70,000/-. The counsel for the OPs has further contended that the complainant has deliberately not made Sandeep Kaur Sidhu, drawer of the cheque as a party in this case. It has further been pointed out by the counsel for the OPs that even the complaint filed by the complainant with the Banking Ombudsman has also been dismissed. According to the counsel for the OPs, the appropriate remedy, if any, available to the complainant is against Sandeep Kaur Sidhu and not against the OPs.

11.              We have weighed the contentions raised by the counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.

12.              In this case, primarily the grievance of the complainant is against OP2 where he maintained a savings account in which he deposited cheque No.165495 dated 15.11.2019 and initially after clearance of the cheque, the amount of Rs.1,70,000/- was credited in his account but subsequently, the credit entry of Rs.1,70,000/- was reversed by OP2 on the ground that the drawer of the cheque gave in writing that she had issued cheque Ex. C2 only for a sum of Rs.10,000/- and the complainant converted the same into Rs.1,70,000/-. On the cheque returning memo Ex. C4, the ground of returning the cheque is mentioned as “Referred to drawer/alteration on cheque”. In this regard, the OPs have relied upon ex. R3 which is a letter addressed to Punjab National Bank i.e. OP3 by the drawer of the cheque namely Sandeep Kaur Sidhu wherein it has been specifically stated that she had issued the cheque in question for a sum of Rs.10,000/- only and the complainant has converted into a cheque of Rs.1,70,000/-. It is further mentioned in the letter Ex. R3 that the cheque be returned and the amount of the cheque be transferred back in her account. Acting upon the advice of the drawer of the cheque namely Sandeep Kaur Sidhu, OP2 and OP3 reversed the credit entry made in favour of the complainant and returned the cheque to the complainant. The counsel for the complainant has not able to refer to any banking norms or rules according to which such action on the part of the bank might not be permissible or illegal. If the drawer of the cheque stops the payment of the cheque alleging forgery or fraud, in our considered view, the bank is under an obligation to stop the payment of the cheque. The banks are not supposed to hold an enquiry on their own level to ascertain the veracity of the allegations made by the drawer of the cheque. Actually the dispute is between the complainant and the drawer of the cheque which can be resolved by having recourse of civil or criminal proceedings in appropriate court of law. Once OP3 received the instructions from the drawer of the cheque that she had not issued the cheque of the amount mentioned in the cheque or that the amount of the cheque has been manipulated and, therefore, the amount claimed in the cheque should not be paid, OP3 had no choice to act  upon the advice of drawer of the cheque and stop the payment. In the given circumstances, in our considered view, the appropriate remedy available with the complainant was to sue the drawer of the cheque namely Sandeep Kaur Sidhu or to prosecute her under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for having wrongly stopped the payment of the cheque.  Strangely enough, the complainant has not even impleaded the drawer of the cheque Sandeep Kaur Sidhu as party in this case and on this ground also, an adverse inference ought to be drawn against the complainant. 

13.              During the course of arguments, the counsel for the complainant has referred to Section 18 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 which shows that if the amount mentioned in a negotiable instrument is stated differently in figures and in words, the amount stated in words should be the amount undertaken or ordered to be paid. In this context, it has been argued by the counsel for the complainant that since in the cheque Ex. R4, the amount in figure is clearly mentioned as Rs.1,70,000/- only, the bank was bound to pay this amount to the complainant in accordance with Section 18 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

14.              We have thoughtfully considered the contentions raised by the counsel for the complainant but have found the same to be without any force or substance. What has been stated or provide in Section 18 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 the same is not relevant or applicable in the context of the present case. Even otherwise, the question whether the drawer Sandeep Kaur Sidhu had issued a cheque of Rs.10,000/- or Rs.1,70,000/-  or whether any manipulation in converting the cheque of Rs.10,000/- into a cheque of Rs.1,70,000/- by forgery etc. cannot be decided by this Commission as detailed evidence is required to be recorded whereas summary procedure is resorted to in this Commission. Moreover, as stated above, the complainant has not impleaded Sandeep Kaur Sidhu as party in this case. Therefore, the question of payment of cheque in accordance with the provisions of Section 18 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 does not arise at all in this case.

15.              The counsel for the complainant has further referred to the instructions dated 18.10.2002 issued by Reserve Bank of India whereby the guidelines have been issued to all the public sector banks to the effect that all the cases of fraud, whether committed by outsiders on their own or with the connivance of bank officials and case of fraud committed by bank officials themselves, should invariably be reported to the investigating agencies or criminal cases filed with Courts where appropriate, immediately after the bank has concluded that a fraud has been perpetrated.

16.              We have gone through the above instructions and are constrained to hold that the referred guidelines are also not relevant in the context of the controversy involved in the present case. In the instant case, no fraud is alleged to have been committed by an outsider with the bank nor any fraud is alleged to have been taken place in connivance with the officials of OP1, OP2 and OP3. Rather as stated above, the dispute in this case is between the complainant and Sandeep Kaur Sidhu who stopped the payment of the cheque alleging that the amount of the cheque has been manipulated or increased by manipulation and this fact has been denied by the complainant. Thus, the dispute is inter se between the complainant and Sandeep Kaur Sidhu. OP3 has simply acted upon the instructions of its account holder/drawer of the cheque and on the instructions of OP3, OP2 has reversed the entry as  consequential measure once the payment of the cheque was stopped by the drawer which, as stated above, is not shown to be against the banking norms. Therefore, even this contention that the guidelines dated 18.10.2002 have not been followed by the OPs, is not sustainable.

17.              As a result of above discussion, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

18.              Due to rush of work and spread of COVID-19, the case could not be decided within statutory period.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:26.08.2022.

Gobind Ram.

Gurmukh Singh Vs Punjab National Bank                             CC/20/138 

Present:       Complainant Sh. Gurmukh Singh Atwal in person.

                   Sh. Vyom Bansal, Advocate for OPs.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:26.08.2022.

Gobind Ram.