Haryana

Ambala

CC/15/139

Jagdish Rai - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab National Bank - Opp.Party(s)

P.S.sharma

28 Nov 2017

ORDER

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

                                                                Complaint No. 139 of 2015.

                Date of Institution: 21.05.2015.

    Date of final order: 28.11.2017.

 

1.Sh.Jagdish Rai s/o Sh.Ghansham Dass aged 64 years r/o 1019, Milap Nagar, Ambala City Prop. M/s Ravi Light House, Ambala City 2903/2, Jagadhri Gate, Ambala City.

 

2.M/s Ravi Light House, Ambala City 2903/2, Jagadhri Gate, Ambala City through its Prop. Sh.Jagdish Rai s/o Sh.Ghansham Dass aged 64 Years r/o 1019, Milap Nagar, Ambala City.

                                                                   .….Complainants.

                                       Versus

 

1. Punjab National Bank, Bhikhaji Cama Palace, New Delhi through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director.

 

2. Punjab National Bank, DAV College Road Branch, Ambala City.

 

3. State Bank of India, Mandi Branch, Ambala City.

                                                          …..Opposite parties.

                          Complaint under section 12 of

Before: Sh. Dina Nath Arora, President.

    Smt. Anamika Gupta, Member.

            Sh. Pushpender Kumar, Member.   

 

Present:  Sh.P.S.Sharma, Adv. for complainant.

              Sh.U.S.Dwivedi Adv. for OP Nos. 1 & 2.

              Sh.Satinder Garg, Adv. for OP No.3.   

                             

ORDER:

 

             Brief facts of the complaint are that the complainants in order to pay sales tax to Govt. of Haryana for the month of August, 2014 to the tune of Rs.5,80,000/- issued cheque bearing No.218462 dated 15.09.2014 in favour of OP No.3 for and on behalf of State of Haryana to collect/receive sales tax etc. and further dropped the same in the box meant for the collection of the cheuqes duly maintained by OP no.3 in its branches.Thereafter the complainants remained under belief that the payment of sales tax stands paid. On 26.09.2014 son of the complainant namely Ravi Kumar visited OP No.3 and enquired about the receipt of payment of Rs.5,80,000/- but no satisfactory reply was given and on visiting of Op No.2 he came to know that the said cheque has been encashed in the name of one Naveen Kumar s/o Hari Om by their branch at Pahargang Delhi in account No.165510031329 of Dena Bank, Narela Branch, Delhi. Due to deficiency in service on the part of OP Nos. 1 & 2, said Naveen Kumar got encashed the cheque after stealing the same from the collection box of OP No.3 by tampering the cheque. Thereafter, the complainant got lodged FIR No.364 on 01.10.2014. If the officers of OP Nos. 1 & 2 had acted diligently the cheque in question could not have been encashed because in the front of the cheque the account No.165510031329 has been mentioned. The complainants have suffered financial loss to the tune of Rs.5,80,000/- as another cheque was to be issued qua payment of sales tax to the Government of Haryana. The act and conduct of the Ops clearly amounts to deficiency in service on their part.  In evidence, the complainant has tendered affidavit Annexure CX and documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C23.

2.             On notice OPs appeared and OP Nos. 1 & 2 in their joint reply have taken many preliminary objections such as maintainability, mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties, and territorial jurisdiction of this Forum etc. As per record cheque No.218462 was issued by the complainants in favour of one Naveen Kumar for a sum of Rs.5,80,000/- which was got encashed from New Delhi Branch on 23.09.2014 and it is wrong that the cheque in question was dropped at SBI for payment of sales tax.  The officers of the OP Nos. 1 & 2 have acted with due diligence and are to honour the directions of their account holders/customers. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.

3.             OP No.3 in its separate reply has taken many preliminary objections such as maintainability and present complaint cannot be decided in summarily manner as complicated questions are involved in the same. It is incorrect that such cheque was ever dropped in the collection box of the OP No.3 and it is a matter of fact that if any cheque which is dropped in the collection box is duly entered into the record maintained by the bank for the same.  Other contentions made in the complaint have been denied and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. In evidence, the OPs have tendered affidavits Annexure RA, Annexure RX and document Annexure R1.

4.             We have heard learned counsel of both the parties and also perused the record placed on file.

5.             It is clear that the cheque amounting to Rs.5,80,000/- has been got encashed in favour of one Naveen Kumar at New Delhi. The complainant has come with the plea that due to negligence of OPs the cheque amounting to Rs.5,80,000/-, which was issued as payment of Sales Tax in favour of Government of Haryana, was encashed by one Naveen Kumar after stealing the same from the collection box of OP No.3 whereas the OPs have come with plea that the cheque amounting to Rs.5,80,000/- was issued in favour of Naveen Kumar and the same was got encashed at New Delhi.   

6.             Perusal of the case file reveals that in para No.5 of the complaint the complainant has levelled an allegation that one Naveen Kumar had tampered the cheque, after stealing the same from the collection box of OP No.3, by using some chemical in his name and withdrawn the amount by opening the account in Dena Bank, Narela Branch Delhi. The complainant has further mentioned in his complaint that the amount of Rs.5,80,000/- was to be paid as sales tax to the Government of Haryana but he had to pay this amount by issuing another cheque. During the course of proceedings of this complaint, the complainant stated that the FIR No.364 dated 01.10.2014 under Sections 406/420/379/120-B IPC was lodged against said Naveen Kumar and trial against him was commenced before Criminal Court, at Ambala. Concerned file was summoned again during the course of arguments and statement of the concerned Clerk has also been recorded. Perusal of Annexure C11 Report of Examination of Cheque No.FQC218462 dated 15.09.2014 for Rs.5,80,000/- given by Technical Committee of PNB, Printing of Stationery Department, Head Office C-13 Sec-1, Noida, which is also available on the criminal file, wherein it has been mentioned as under:

“It seems that tampering has been made in the area of payee name, amount in figure and words as UV is missing in these areas.

        From the aforesaid observations, the Technical Committee has drawn the conclusion that the abvoe mentioned cheque leaf is tempered. So you are informed to collect aforesaid cheque leaf through an officer having GBPA number and his signatures duly verified by the incumbent incharge. You are also informed to get the cheque leaf examined through forensic expert at branch/CO level as it seems that alteration has been made in the area of payee name & amount in figure and words”.

                We have gone through the material available on the case file besides going through the criminal file State Vs. Naveen but perusal of the same reveals that there is no Forensic Expert report/ opinion is on the file rather as per Recovery memo (Annexure C7)  the police had taken into possession one pen drive containing the photographs captured by the CCTV installed in the bank premises SBI, Mandi, Ambala City from the alleged cheque had been stolen by some unknown person. There is no such evidence on the file whether complainant had to pay a sum of Rs.5,80,000/- to the Sales Tax Department nor such evidence that he paid the said amount to the department after alleged misuse of the cheque in question.  Technical Committee of PNB vide Annexure C11 had observed that the cheque has been tampered, which proved that the bank was not totally confirmed and further recommended for opinion of Forensic Expert to ascertain the fact as to who had stolen the cheque and who had dropped the same in the box of the bank as well as to compare the hand-writing of the accused person with the person who had got encashed the same after tampering the cheque in question. No such report has been placed on the case file. The pleas of the complainant qua tampering of cheque after stealing the same from the collection box of OP No.3 by one Naveen Kumar requires elaborating evidence, therefore, it was open for the complainant to take action against the wrong doers under the law before the competent court as the proceedings before this Forum are summarily in nature instead of approaching this Forum. Keeping in view the above mentioned fact and circumstances this Forum is of the view that the matter in question cannot be adjudicated in summarily manner as it involves complicated questions of facts such as fraud and stealing of cheque etc. Moreover, in the said criminal case the accused has been declared PO and file has been consigned by the learned Trial Court without deciding the same on merits. On this point reliance can be taken from case law titled as Uco Bank vs. Sh.S.D.Wadhwa, 2013 (4) CLT (NC).  The case laws titled as State Bank of India Vs. Nawab Sekh 1 (2017) PJ 6 B (CN) (WB) & NCC Urban Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Ravi Krishan Prasad 2016 (2) CPR 789   relied upon by learned counsel for the complainant are not applicable in the present case and same are being distinguished.

7.                Hence, in view of above discussed factual as-well-as legal position, we are of the considered view that the present complaint is hereby dismissed being not maintainable. Moreover, in order to resolve the controversy alleged in the pleadings such as tampering of cheque after stealing the same from the collection box of OP No.3 by one Naveen Kumar, elaborating evidence is required and this Forum cannot decided the matter in summarily manner. However, the complainant is at liberty to approach at appropriate Court/forum if he so advised and in that eventuality, the period of litigation before this Forum shall not be counted towards the period of limitation for approaching appropriate court/forum.  Exemption of time spent before this Forum is granted  in terms of the  judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled “ Laxmi Engineering Works versus PSG Industrial Institute  (1995) 3 SCC page 583 Assistant of this Forum is directed to handover original documents, if any, on the file to the parties concerned on proper receipt and verification. It is made clear that if any document has been annexured by both the parties, they can obtain the certified copy as per law. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned after due compliance.

 

Announced on: 28.11.2017

 

                                                                (D.N.Arora)

(Pushpender Kumar)  (Anamika Gupta       )         President,

Member              Member                 District Consumer Disputes                                                               Redressal Forum, Ambala