Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/14/869

Lokesh Singhal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab National Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Kin Bhalla

29 Jun 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

                                                          C.C. No.869 of 18.12.2014

                                                            Date of order:29.06.2015

Lokesh Singhal, Proprietor M/s VLS Sales Corporation, Jassian Road, Haibowal Kalan, Ludhiana.

                                                                             … Complainant

                                                Versus             

 

Punjab National Bank,  Rajpura Road Branch, Ludhiana through its Branch Manager.

                                                                             Opposite Party

          Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum:    Sh.R.L.Ahuja, President

                   Sh.Sat Paul Garg, Member

                  

Present:-     Sh.Kin Bhalla, Adv, for complainant.                       

                   Sh.Rana Harjasdeep Singh, Adv, for Op.

 

ORDER

 

SAT PAUL GARG, MEMBER     

 

1.           Present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, has been filed by Sh.Lokesh Singhal (hereinafter in short to be described as ‘complainants’) against Punjab National Bank,  Rajpura Road Branch, Ludhiana through its Branch Manager(hereinafter in short to be described as ‘Op’) directing them to refund the amount of Rs.1 lakh illegally and wrongly deducted by the OP from the account of the complainant alongwith compensation of Rs.50,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.22,000/- to the complainant.
2.           Brief facts of the case are that the complainant is having one current account bearing No.2406002100016035 in the OP bank and availed the service of the bank and even the bank charged money for providing the services to the complainant. The complainant issued one cheque bearing No.687380 dated 15.7.2013 of Rs.1 lakh in the name of Cement & Associates. Due to insufficiency of funds, that cheque got bounced by the OP and bouncing charges of Rs.100/- was imposed on the complainant. On 20.10.2014, the Op illegally deducted Rs.1 lakh from the account of the complainant against the above said cheque and when the complainant came to know about this fact, he approached the officials of OP and enquired about the deduction of Rs.1 lakh from the account of the complainant but no proper and satisfied answer was given by the OP. Thereafter, the complainant approached the branch manager of OP and told about the negligence of the official of OP bank, then the Branch Manager told that Rs.1 lakh was deducted from the account in lieu of cheque No.687380 dated 15.7.2013. However, as per the guideliens of RBI, a cheque remain valid for the period of three months from the date bearing on the instrument. When the cheque bounced on 24.7.2013 and amount of Rs.100/- was imposed to the complainant as penalty of bouncing charges, then that amount cannot be deducted after 15 months, otherwise, bank has no authority to debit the account of the complainant. After 15 months of the transaction, that clearly shows the negligent behaviour of the OP bank. On 21.10.2014, the complainant gave a written complaint to the Branch Manager of OP and he duly received the same. However, after expiry of more than one month, OP has failed to return the amount wrongly and illegally deducted by the OP. Hence, this complaint.

3.                Upon notice of the complaint, OP was duly served and appeared through Sh.Rana Harjasdeep Singh, Advocate and filed written statement, in which, it has been submitted in the preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable as the complainant has not come to this Hon’ble Forum with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts. On 24.7.2013, the answering OP had received 24039 instruments in the inward clearing at its Central clearing branch at Chennai. These instruments were issued by customers at Punjab National Bank from all over the country. On that day i.e.24.7.2013, Punjab National Bank Central clearing branch office at Chennai had encountered the following problems:-

“CTS server slowed and due to which, the processing of instruments not completed. Even though, the cheques were processed in CBS/Finacle but the same were not able to be transferred to CTS server due to technical problems/slow down of CTS server. This resulted in non returning of instruments in time and the returning session closed as per the session timings. In that situation, the Punjab National Bank had no other option but debit its suspense account for the amount equivalent to the amount of non returned amount. In that process, Punjab National Bank had debited its suspense account with Rs.5,91,94,761.58P. Subsequently, the answering OP have taken up with the respective collecting banks and recovered some amount from the payee of the instruments where ever funds were available.”

In the present case, cheque No.687380 dated 15.7.2013 favour M/s Cements & Associates for Rs.1 lakh was presented in the inward clearing on 24.7.2013 in the account 2406002100016035 of  M/s VLS Sales Corp. This cheque was presented by Allahabad Bank (600010000). The answering OP had marked return of this instrument as balance available in the account 2406002100016035 as on 24.7.2013 was Rs.280.12. Even though this instrument was marked return in CBS/Finacle but not transferred to CTS server due to slowdown/technical problem in CTS server within the return session timings and hence, this instrument could not be returned to the collecting bank i.e Allahabad Bank on 24.7.2013 and amount of this instrument was passed on to payee M/s Cement & Associates. The system charged the return charges as return was marked in the Finacle system and same stands reversed as on date. The amount of Rs.1 lakh pertaining to the above debited to a suspense account of the bank on 24.7.2013 subject to recovery from either drawer or payee. In the present case, answering OP tried to recover from the collecting bank but could not succeed as the payee had withdrawn the amount. Therefore, in order to adjust the suspense account of the bank, the answering OP recovered the amount of Rs.1 lakh on 20.10.2014 from the account 2406002100016035 of M/s VLS Sales Corp and adjusted their suspense entry. Without the balance in the account, the complainant cannot issue cheque and become liable for punishment in terms of N.I.Act. U/s 139 of Negotiable Instrument Act the person issuing the cheque is presumed to have the legal liability to pay the amount to the payee. Hence, the bank is not liable as there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering OP bank. The intention of the complainant is to make payment to the payee because if it is otherwise, he would have made stop payment of the cheque and he has not done any such thing. The original transaction took place on 24.7.2013 and it is recovery subsequent, hence, it is not a stale cheque transaction. The complainant has not arrayed M/s Cement and Associates as party in the present complaint which is a necessary party as per the pleading sin the present complaint. As the cheque was presented to the bank for clearing, the bank inspite of technical problems and cleared the cheque by making payment from its suspense account and therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the bank. It could be presumed from the present that the complainant had the intention to pay the cheque amount to the payee and complainant party can recover the amount illegally from the payee i.e. M/s Cement & Associates. Reply on facts, similar pleas were taken as mentioned in the preliminary objections and at the end, denying any deficiency in service and all other allegations made by the complainants in the complaint against the answering OP being wrong and incorrect, answering Op made prayer for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

4.                Parties adduced their evidence by way of tendering affidavits and documents on record in support of their respective pleadings.

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the both the parties and have also perused the record on the file very carefully.

6.                It is evident that the complainant was having one current account bearing No.2406002100016035 in the bank of OP and he had issued one cheque bearing No.687380 dated 15.7.2013 of Rs.1 lakh in the name of Cement & Associates. But due to insufficiency of funds, that cheque got bounced by the OP and bouncing charges of Rs.100/- was imposed on the complainant. Though, it was incumbent on the part of the OP to return the aforesaid cheq          ue to the complainant after it was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds and as such, retention of the aforesaid cheque by the OP as well as dishonouring of the same after the elapse of 15 months, amounts to deficiency in service.

7.                However, the defence taken by the OP which is detailed in the written reply of the OP that process of return of the cheque could not take place due to some technical snag in the CTS Server of the OP while they processed the entire transaction in CBS/Finacle which failed to transfer to CTS server due to technical problem/slow down of the said server which resulted in non returning of instruments in time and the returning session was closed as per the sessions timings. In that situation, the OP Bank had no other option but debit its suspense account for the amount equivalent to the amount of non returned amount. In that process, Punjab National Bank had debited its suspense account with Rs.5,91,94,761.58P. Subsequently, the OP bank had taken up with the respective collecting banks and recovered some amount from the payee of the instruments when the funds were made available. All above averments of the OP are plausible. Moreover, it is not understood as to why the complainant had issued the cheque of Rs.1 lakh from his saving account No.2406002100016035 when he was very much well within the knowledge that there was mere balance of Rs.280.12P in the said account. However, the complainant has got silent over the issuance of the cheque and further, he was not asked for the return of the cheque from the OP nor he had made any request for stopping the payment of the same. As per document Ex.C3, the complainant initiated his efforts to stop the payment of the cheque only after the said amount of Rs.1 lakh was transferred from his account. All these shows that the complainant all his intention to make the payment of Rs.1 lakh to the payee. Though, due to the negligence of the OP or due to technical snag in the CTS Server of OP, he took 15 months to transfer the amount of Rs.1 lakh to the Cement & Associates and during this period of 15 months, the complainant did not make any effort to stop the payment of the cheque or to get the same returned from the OP bank.

8.                In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that since the complainant had all intention of make the payment of Rs.1 lakh to the payee but the deficiency in service on the part of the OP is writ large because OP had taken 15 months to transfer the amount. As such, the complaint is partly allowed and this Forum is of the opinion that amount of Rs.1 lakh transferred was very much intended to be paid. However, for deficiency in service, OP is directed to pay Rs.10,000/-(Ten thousand only) as compensation to the complainant on account of mental pain, agony and harassment suffered by him and Rs.5000/-(Five thousand only) as litigation charges to the complainant. However, the complainant is at liberty to get the amount of Rs.1 lakh refunded from Cement & Associatesas OP had already made payment to them. Compliance of order qua compensation and litigation costs be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order which be made available to the parties free of costs. File be completed and consigned to record room.

 

                   (Sat Paul Garg)              (R.L.Ahuja)

                                  Member                       President  

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:29.06.2015

Gurpreet Sharma.