DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Complaint Case No : 695/2016
Date of Institution : 20.12.2016
Date of Decision : 9.2.2018
Hari Om aged about 55 years son of Sh. Gati Ram resident of # 13-X/843, K.C. Road, Barnala now residing at Baba Jiwan Singh Basti Ram Bagh Road, Barnala Tehsil & District Barnala.
…Complainant
Versus
Punjab National Bank (Head Office), 7, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi through its General Manager.
Punjab National Bank Main Branch, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Road, Barnala, through its Manager.
…Opposite Parties
Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.
Present: Sh. Yash Paul Bansal counsel for the complainant.
Opposite party No. 1 deleted vide order dated 27.12.2016.
Sh. A.K. Jindal counsel for opposite party No. 2.
Quorum.-
1. Shri Sukhpal Singh Gill : President
Ms. Vandna Sidhu : Member
ORDER
(SUKHPAL SINGH GILL, PRESIDENT)
The complainant namely Hari Om has filed the present complaint against Punjab National Bank (Head Office) New Delhi through its General Manager and Punjab National Bank, Branch Barnala through its Manager (hereinafter called the opposite parties No. 1 & 2). The complainant alleged that he is having an account No. 0044000100718067 with the opposite party No. 2 and has been drawing his salary, which is being deposited by the BSNL with the opposite party No. 2. Complainant had been also withdrawing the amounts through the ATM's. Alternatively the ATM's are stand by for withdrawal of money by the people to fulfill their daily requirements. It is further alleged that the complainant visited number of ATM's besides the ATM's of the Punjab National Bank and most of the ATM's were not in working order and having no cash.
2. It is further alleged that on 3.12.2016 the complainant visited the Bank of opposite party No. 2 and submitted a cheque No. 449936 dated 3.12.2016 for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- for encashment for the same. The officials of the bank asked the complainant that the cheque presented for encashment is an old cheque and the complainant should fill a voucher for the same as the new cheque book was not available with the opposite parties. On this, the complainant filled the withdrawal voucher for sum of Rs. 25,000/- on 3.12.2016 in the bank branch and presented the same for encashment, but the officials of the bank refused to make the payment in respect of the said withdrawal voucher of Rs. 25,000/- and asked the complainant to fill a withdrawal voucher for the sum of Rs. 5,000/- and then the complainant filled the withdrawal voucher for the sum of Rs. 5,000/- on the same day, but the officials of the bank also refused to make the payment in respect of the said voucher and asked him to fill a withdrawal voucher for Rs. 2,000/-, as the officials asked the complainant that they have no authority to make the payment above Rs. 2,000/- to the complainant. It is further alleged that the complainant had been standing in the que for the last 4 hours before the bank and the complainant under compelled circumstances had to get Rs. 2,000/-. The complainant was in dire need of money as he has to make the payment to the people in respect of the previous month and for the necessaries of life. Even they did not dare to make any endorsement on the said cheque and withdrawal vouchers. The behaviour of the bank officials was not up to the mark. The opposite parties are bound to make payment of Rs. 24,000/- a week as has been disclosed in the media by the competent authorities. Thus, there is a clear cut deficiency in service by the opposite parties. Hence, the present complaint is filed for seeking following reliefs :-
(1) The opposite party No. 2 be directed to make the payment of Rs. 25,000/- in respect of withdrawal voucher dated 3.12.2016.
2) The opposite party No. 2 further be directed to pay Rs. 50,000/- towards mental tension and harassment and Rs. 11,000/- on account of litigation expenses.
It is pertinent to mention here that the learned counsel for complainant has made a statement on 27.12.2016 that the complainant does not want any relief against the opposite party No. 1 and the same may be deleted from the arena of opposite parties and the opposite party No. 1 is deleted from the arena of opposite parties vide order dated 27.12.2016.
3. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite party No. 2 appeared and filed written version taking legal objections on the grounds of no locus-standi or cause of action, complaint is frivolous and vexatious, suppression of material facts, jurisdiction etc. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant maintains his salary account with them. It is further admitted that the complainant presented cheque for withdrawal of Rs. 25,000/- and the cheque is old date one. It is submitted that the complainant filled a withdrawal voucher of Rs. 25,000/-, whereas in India our worthy Prime Minister declare Demonetization on 8.11.2016 and after 8.11.2016, the amount was fixed by the RBI and till today the account holder can withdrawa the amount of Rs. 24,000/- from his saving account, whereas at the time of presentation of the withdrawal voucher, bank officials are unable to pay Rs. 25,000/- to the complainant. It is further submitted that the OP bank tried its best to accommodate its client and amount of cash has been distributed as per the cash available in the Bank. It is denied that the bank officials refused to written upon the cheque or the withdrawal voucher. It is further submitted that the employees of the Bank are bound to follow the circulars of the Reserve Bank of India, which were issued by the RBI from 8.11.2016 regarding the disbursement of the payments in different accounts of the customers of the Bank and even today a saving account holder can withdrawa Rs. 24,000/- from his saving account in a week. So, there is no deficiency in service on their party and prayed for the dismissal of complaint.
4. To prove his case, the complainant tendered into evidence copy of pass book Ex.C-1, cheque No. 449936 dated 3.12.2016 Ex.C-2, Two vouchers dated 3.12.2016 Ex.C-3 & Ex.C-4, his affidavit Ex.C-5, copy of cheque Ex.C-6 and closed the evidence.
5. To rebut the case of complainant, the opposite party No. 2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Dalip Singh Branch Manager Ex.O.P-1.2/1, account statement Ex.O.P-1.2/2, GBD circular No. 117/2016 Ex.O.P-2/3, copy of memo of cash dated 2.5.2017 Ex.O.P-2/4 and closed the evidence.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records.
7. The version of the complainant is that he is customer of opposite party No. 2, as he is maintaining saving bank account and his salary also being credited in this account. The complainant on 3.12.2016 personally visited the office of the opposite party No. 2 to withdraw Rs. 25,000/- through cheque which is Ex.C-2, but the payment was declined on the ground that the cheque presented by him is of old dated cheque book. On this, the complainant filled the withdrawal voucher for Rs. 25,000/-, but he was advised to withdraw Rs. 5,000/- and later on the officials of the opposite party No. 2 advised him to fill the form for Rs. 2,000/- that too when he stood in the que for the last 4 hours.
8. In reply the opposite party No. 2 had admitted that the complainant presented the cheque for Rs. 25,000/-, but the same was not honoured as the presented cheque was of old cheque book. After this the complainant filled the withdrawal voucher for Rs. 25,000/-, but as per the RBI guidelines the account holder could withdraw Rs. 24,000/- from his saving account.
9. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and on the presence of documents placed on record, we find that the opposite party No. 2 had himself admitted that due to the demonetization instructions of the Government of India and RBI circulars, the Bank could pay only upto Rs. 24,000/- from the saving bank account.
10. Now if we go by the version of the Bank that only Rs. 24,000/- was permissible for withdrawal from the saving bank account then why the complainant was first refused on the pretext that they cheque presented is old one i.e. the cheque was from old cheque book, though it was of the same date 3.12.2016 that too when the complainant personally visited the office of opposite party No. 2. Then why he was asked to fill the withdrawal voucher for Rs. 25,000/- and afterwards for Rs. 5,000/- and finally the payment of Rs. 2,000/- has been made as per document Ex.O.P-1.2/2. Further, the opposite party No. 2 has not placed on record any document to substantiate his version that on 3.12.2016 as per the Government of India guidelines only Rs. 24,000/- were allowed to be withdrawn from the saving bank account. As such the affidavit Ex.O.P1.2/1 is not supported by any document and is not sustainable. The document Ex.O.P2/3, which is of dated 9.11.2016 is mostly with regard to the exchange policy of the notes, however it only contains that ;
“ Cash withdrawal from a bank account over the counter shall be restricted to Rs. 10,000/- per day subject to an overall limit of Rs. 20,000/- a week from the date of the notification until the end of business hours on 24th November, 2016, after which these limits shall be reviewed”
So, it shows that the above instructions were valid till 24.11.2016 only, whereas the complainant had visited the office of the opposite party No. 2 on 3.12.2016 for withdrawal from his saving bank account.
11. There is no doubt that after the demonetization by the Government of India there was lot of pressure on the Banks and the Banks were left with small amount of cash, but then if it was so, then also the matter could have been solved by the opposite party No. 2 by remaining transparent in the financial dealing and maintaining high standard of cordial relation with the customers, as the whole country was contributing in implementation of the demonetization policy of the Government so as to build strong economy. The opposite party No. 2 is a customer oriented financial outlet of a various strong institutions in which growth is due to the favour of the customers. In financial institution utmost satisfaction of the customer is required as the whole business of the institution is customer oriented. The complainant is a Government employee and as a customer is maintaining handsome deposit with the opposite party No. 2 and had the officials of the opposite party No. 2 dealt with him politely, then also the matter would have been resolved peacefully.
12. The complainant on 9.5.2017 again submitted that he was refused the payment of Rs. 50,000/- when he visited the office of opposite party No. 2 on 2.5.2017 that too when the opposite party No. 2 had issued him the token. The opposite party No. 2 admitted the fact that the cheque Ex.C-6 was presented but the complainant refused to take the payment as the payment was being made in small demonetization currency notes. But then again on the perusal of the document Ex.O.P-2/4 we find that the O.P Bank was having big notes as well then why the complainant was offered that small demonetization currency notes. This attitude of the opposite party No. 2 also contributes to deficiency of service.
13. The version of the opposite party No. 2 is that the complainant had old cheque book is also not admissible that too when the complainant personally present in the office of opposite party No. 2 and opposite party No. 2 has not placed on record as to why and how the said cheque was not valid. Even though the opposite party No. 2 would have issued a new cheque book to the complainant. But the complainant was first made fill the withdrawal voucher for Rs. 25,000/- then for Rs. 5,000/- and subsequently for Rs. 2,000/- which was passed as per document Ex.O.P1.2/2 against the credit balance of Rs. 1,58,331.56.
14. So, from the above discussion we find that the opposite party No. 2 is deficient in service as neither the opposite party No. 2 has placed on record as to how the cheque Ex.C-2 dated 3.12.2016 for Rs. 25,000/- was not valid when the cheque book out of which the cheque was issued by the opposite party No. 2 nor the opposite party No. 2 has placed on record any document to substantiate its version that the opposite party No. 2 could make payment of Rs. 24,000/- from saving bank account on 3.12.2016. The complainant was paid Rs. 2,000/- but to talk of payment of Rs. 24,000/-. Even Rs. 5,000/- was also not paid.
15. So, from the facts mentioned above we find that the opposite party No. 2 is deficient in service and as such we allow the present complaint and order the opposite party No. 2 to make the payment of Rs. 25,000/- being the amount of mention tension and harassment faced by the complainant. We further order the opposite party No. 2 to make the payment of Rs. 11,000/- to the complainant being the amount of litigation expenses. This order shall be complied with within 30 days from the date of the receipt of this order. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. The file be consigned to the records.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM:
9th day of February 2018
(Sukhpal Singh Gill)
President.
(Vandna Sidhu)
Member
