1.       This is an appeal filed by the complainant against order dated 27.1.2009 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) passed in complaint case No. 1033 of 2007.

2.     The brief facts of the case are that the complainant has a Current Account bearing No.3529002100226420 with Punjab National Bank (OP No.1) and the complainant obtained a loan from HDFC Bank (OP No.2) and for repayment of this loan, the complainant issued 36 cheques of the OP No.1 bank. The complainant again applied for fresh loan from OP No.2 Bank of Rs.5 lacs and without the consent of complainant, OP No.2 illegally sanctioned the loan of Rs.2,50,000/- and made deduction of Rs.51,496/- from the fresh loan account of the complainant in an illegal manner and the fresh loan amount was payable in installments of Rs.8875/-. The OP No.2 bank was taken the consent for ECS from the complainant for clearance of the installments of the said fresh loan from the account of the complainant with the OP No.1 and the dispute arose between the OP No.2 bank and the complainant, due to which the complainant stopped the payment of the ECS of the said installments and made written requests dated 26.10.2006 & 2.11.2007 to the OP No.2 bank with copy to the OP No.1 bank and the Reserve Bank of India. The OP No.1 bank i.e. Punjab National Bank deducted a sum of Rs.350/- on account of stop payment charges from the account of the complainant. Despite the instructions given by the complainant to the OP to stop the ECS, the OP allowed the ECS from the account of the complainant. The complainant filed a complaint bearing No.CC/799/2006 and during the pendency of the complaint, the OP No.1 again allowed payment of ECS of Rs.8875/- on 7.3.2007 & Rs.8875/- on 10.4.2007 on account of the said ECS in favour of OP No.2 bank. The complainant suffered a loss of Rs.17,750/- and also suffered a loss of Rs.8875/- of one installment and Rs.100/- as ECS return charges. The above said act of OPs amounts to deficiency in service and hence, the complaint was filed.

3.        Reply was filed by OP No.1 and admitted that the answering OP received the representations sent by complainant on 26.10.2006 and 2.11.2007 which were addressed to RBI by the complainant regarding stopping the ECS as well as stopping the payment of cheques. The answering OP stopped the clearance of cheques bearing Nos. 617961 to 617966 and for that Rs.350/- were deducted as stop payment charges. It was pleaded that the first request for stopping the clearance of loan installments through ECS was received on 28.10.2006, which was not required to be sent to the OP No.1 i.e.Punjab National Bank. As per the RBI instructions and guidelines on ECS system, the prior notice of 15 days was required for stopping the clearance of any cheque to the clearing house by the HDFC Bank and not the Punjab National Bank. The OP No.2 was to intimate the clearing house regarding not to include the transactions pertaining to such customer/complainant in the ECS input file, which the OP No.2 failed to do so. As per Para No.7(iv)(c) of RBI Instructions it was the obligatory duty of         HDFC Bank not to include the transactions pertaining to such customer/complainant in the ECS input file or withdrawal instructions had been submitted to CH (clearing house), the ECS clearing would have not effected and in case a debit record was repeatedly presented despite such withdrawal or non-existence of mandate for more than three ECS runs, the clearing house may consider not entertaining the future ECS runs of that particular user institution. In the instant case, user institution did not exclude the name of the complainant from the list and did not instruct the clearing house to exclude the name of the complainant. It was further pleaded that the installments through electronic clearance (ECS) on 07.11.2006 could not be stopped as the process for ECS installment for the month of November had already started by the time the request of the complainant was received and as per the RBI Guidelines OP No.1 had no role in controlling the ECS clearing system and the entire control of the ECS was in the hands of HDFC Bank and the clearing house (CH). It was also submitted that once ECS system starts, the debit branch i.e. Punjab National Bank would come to know about when the clearing house automatically debits the account as per the instructions of user institute and the ECS cannot be stopped until and unless the user institution instructs the clearing house regarding withdrawal and such mandate was to be issued by the user institution and the clearing house and not by Punjab National Bank and only then, the clearing house may consider not entering the future ECS of the user institution. It was denied that the complainant had suffered any loss on account of deficient services rendered by OP No.1 and submitted that any cheques debited through ECS system from the account of the complainant, that had been debited on account of the deficient services of OP No.2 (HDFC Bank) and if the HDFC bank had intimated the clearing house and followed the RBI guidelines, the respective amounts would have not been debited from the account of the complainant with Punjab National Bank on 7.3.2007 and 10.4.2007 for Rs.8875/- each (Total comes to Rs.17750/-). It was further submitted that there was no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

4.        Reply was filed by OP No.2 (HDFC Bank)in which it was pleaded that the first loan raised by the complainant was repayable in 36 monthly installments and as on 10.10.2006, the complainant was liable to pay Rs.51,496/- towards the said loan in case the complainant wished to terminate the same prior to the date of normal closure and the same was as per the agreement. It was submitted that as per the bank’s policy, two loans cannot be given to a single individual. The complainant need additional finance and volunteered to close the existing loan account and asked for the adjustment of the pending amount payable under the said loan from the disbursal to be made for the second loan.                                                         It was submitted that the complainant applied for a loan of Rs.2,50,000/- and not Rs.5,00,000/- and it is the prerogative of the bank to decide how much finance can be granted to any proposed customer. The complainant entered into an agreement for finance of Rs.2.5 lacs and not Rs.5 lacs as was alleged by the complainant and the outstanding amount of Rs.51,496/- of the previous loan was adjusted. It is further submitted that no instructions were given by the complainant to stop the ECS payment to OP No.2. Infact, the letter dated 26.10.2006 in the form of a complaint, which was addressed to RBI and no copy the same was provided to OP No.2. Moreover, complainant was not paying the legal dues of the bank and as such the complainant was legally liable to pay the same. Hence, there was no deficiency of service on the part of OP No.2 and prayed for dismissed of the complaint with heavy costs.

5.       The parties led their evidence in support of their contentions.

6.     The District Forum dismissed the complaint as there was no merit.

7.        Aggrieved by the order of District Forum, the present appeal has been filed by the complainant.

8.     In the appeal, it is submitted that the learned District Forum committed an error in dismissing the complaint of the appellant by wrongly noticing the facts of the another complaint case No. 799 of 2006. The learned District Forum failed to take into consideration the reply filed by OP No.1 wherein it was admitted that after receipt of instructions from the appellant, the PNB Bank could not stop the clearance of the ECS on 7.11.2006 but further clearance of ECS has been discontinued as has also been noticed by the learned District Forum in the impugned order. The three more ECS were cleared from the bank account of the appellant and one of the ECS was returned/credited in the account of the appellant but after charging Rs.100/- for return charges without any fault of the appellant. The bank has also charged Rs.350/- on account of stoppage of ECS and clearance of cheques. The Punjab National Bank failed to follow the instructions of appellant and illegally and unauthorisedly allowed the clearance of ECS, therefore there was deficiency in service on the part of OPs. The OP No.1 – PNB Bank has admitted the lapse before the learned District Forum but shifted its burden upon OP No.2 and the specific instructions for stopping the clearance of ECS were made by the complainant. The findings of the learned District Forum that the appellant is a defaulter are irrelevant in the case and the learned District Forum has wrongly considered this aspect of the matter. The learned District Forum has exceeded its jurisdiction in considering extraneous facts while dismissing the complaint of the appellant which is not tenable in law because forcibly and without authority of clearance of ECS cannot be got made by the bank who is holding the account of the appellant because of the trust of the appellant in the PNB Bank. The said conduct of the bank is nothing but breach of trust. Hence, it is prayed that the appeal may kindly be allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum may kindly be set aside.

9.     We have heard Sh.S.S.Bains, Advocate for the appellant, Sh.Nitin Grover, Advocate for respondent No.1 and Sh.Sandeep Suri, Advocate for respondent No.2 and carefully gone through the file. The main point for consideration before us is that whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of OPs. 

10.   After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the record, we have come to the conclusion that respondent No.1 i.e. PNB Bank is not at fault as the respondent No.1 after receiving the intimation immediately stopped the payment of cheques but as regards the payment of ECS, the respondent No.1 has no power to interfere in the process of ECS system. Moreover the amount of Rs.350/- which was debited from the account of the appellant/complainant was charged for the stop payment of the cheques. No cause of action accrued to the complainant against the respondent No.1 as there is no deficiency in service on its part.

11.   As regards the respondent No.2 HDFC Bank we have observed that HDFC Bank has sanctioned the loan to the appellant as per the bank policy and as per agreement. Subsequently the complainant had made a request to the RBI vide its letter dated 26.10.2006 to issue directions to the OPs for stopping the ECS of PNB cheques – dispute regarding loan with HDFC Bank and the same letter was also forwarded to respondent NO.1 as well as to the respondent No.2. Although the appellant has forwarded this letter to respondent No.2 but respondent No.2 denied that they never received any instructions to stop the ECS payment as alleged by the appellant/complainant. After the perusal of the documents even we have come to the conclusion that in particularly there is nothing on file from which we can conclude that the appellant/complainant had approached or any written request was made to the OP for stopping the payment of ECS even if we accept that the two loan installments have been wrongly deducted by the respondents/OPs from current account of the complainant, despite the instructions to stop the payment, the complainant had actually not suffered any financial loss whatsoever as a matter of fact, the entire amount deducted from the current account has gone into his loan account only for the repayment of outstanding dues wherein the huge amount is still outstanding. In our view the lending bank i.e. HDFC Bank, has rightly, not stopped the payment of ECS, due to the reason as it has also been observed by us that the appellant still has to pay the remaining outstanding amount. Moreover the complainant failed to show any clause in the loan agreement, that he could terminate the ECS arrangements without paying his loan installments and clearing the balance due in the loan account. In our view the respondent No.2 was not at any fault by not stopping the payment of ECS. Keeping in view the above discussion, we are of the view that there is no deficiency in service on the part of both the respondents qua the complainant. Consequently, we dismiss the appeal with no order as to costs.

12.        Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.