Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/109/2019

Mohit Kaul - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab National Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Ravi Kant Sharma Adv.

16 Oct 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	109 of 2019
Date  of  Institution	:	05.03.2019
Date   of   Decision	:	16.10.2019

 

 

 

 

Mohit Kaul s/o Anil Kumar Kaul, resident of House NO.879, Exel Co-Op House Building Society, Sector 48-A, Chandigarh.  

   

             ……..Complainant

 

Versus

 

1]  Punjab National Bank, Branch Sector 49, Chandigarh through Branch Manager and Managing Director.

2]  YES Bank Ltd., Sector 46, Chandigarh, through Branch Manager and Managing Director 160047

 

………. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN            PRESIDENT

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA        MEMBER

           

Argued by :

Sh.Ravi Kant Sharma, Adv. for complainant.

Sh.Deepak Sahni, Adv. for Opposite Party No.1.

Sh.Deepak Jain, Adv. for Opposite Party No.2.

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

         Briefly stated, the complainant deposited a Cheque bearing No.484985 in his Savings Bank Account No.6646001500-003005 in Punjab National Bank/Opposite Party No.1 for clearing on 31.10.2018 for Rs.50,000/- of YES Bank Ltd., issued by Sh.Anil Kumar Kaul, but the same was returned with remarks ‘image not clear’ and the amount was not paid. However, an amount of Rs.118/- was deducted from his account (Ann.C-1).  The complainant again presented the said cheque in his account with Opposite Party No.1, but it was again returned unpaid (Ann.C-2) on the ground of cutting on the cheque and again an amount of Rs.118/- has been deducted from the account of the complainant.  It is stated that there was no cutting/alteration on the cheque and it has been returned unpaid due to negligent act on the part of Opposite Party No.1 and complainant had to suffer loss of Rs.236/- as well.  The complainant issued a notice to the Opposite Parties in this regard, but to no avail.  Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging the said act & conduct of the OPs as gross deficiency in service.

 

2]       The Opposite Party No.1/Punjab National Bank has filed reply and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that the cheque in question was duly presented to the Payee Bank i.e. Opposite Party NO.2 through clearing house, but was dishonoured by it on flimsy reason that ‘image of the cheque not clear’.  It is stated that the Opposite Party No.1 sent the image of the said cheque for the clearing on 31.10.2018, as per procedure to Opposite Party NO.2, but it was not cleared due to technical error.  It is also stated that due to poor image and cutting on the cheque, the cheque was dishonoured when it was presented for the second time by Opposite Party No.1.  It is submitted that it is the Opposite Party No.2, who is to honour or dishonour the cheque in question on merits, so it is Opposite Party NO.2 who was at fault.  It is also submitted that as a goodwill gesture and showing concern towards the customer/complainant, the amount of Rs.236/- debited as cheque bounce charges has already been reversed in his account.  Pleading no deficiency in service and denying other allegations, the Opposite Party NO.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

 

         The Opposite Party No.2 has also filed reply and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that the cheque in question was presented to it for encashment by Punjab National Bank i.e. Opposite Party No.2 on 31.10.2018, but the same was returned dishonoured as the complete date was not visible on the image, so it was returned (Ann.R-2/1).  It is stated that the said cheque was again presented for encashment on 6.11.2018 and the complete date on the image was still not visible, hence it was returned dishonoured with remarks that instrument undated/date not clear (Ann.R-2/2).  It is submitted that the cheque in question was again represented for payment by Punjab National Bank on 16.11.2018, but the date was still not clear, moreover there was alteration in the payee name, so it was marked with reason altered/correct instrument prohibited (Ann.R-2/3). Denying all other allegations and pleading no deficiency in service, the Opposite Party No.2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

3]       Rejoinder has been filed by the complainant reiterating the assertions as made in the complaint. 

 

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and perused the entire evidence on record.

 

6]       Admittedly, the complainant having Savings Bank Account No.6646001500-003005 in Punjab National Bank/Opposite Party No.1 deposited cheque No.484985 for Rs.50,000/- of YES Bank, issued by Sh.Anil Kumar, for clearing on 31.10.2018, which was dishonoured twice resulting in deduction of Rs.236/- from the account of complainant as cheque bouncing charges.

 

7]       After giving due consideration to the submissions of the parties and after going through the record meticulously, it has been observed that both the Opposite Parties failed to perform their part of duty with diligence, which forced the complainant to approach this Forum by way of present litigation, not only to highlight the deficient functioning of the Opposite Parties, but also to claim compensation for the harassment suffered due to the negligent services of the Opposite Parties. 

 

8]       From the record, as well from the submissions of both the OPs, it is clear that the cheque presented by the complainant for clearance got bounced twice as the Opposite Party No.1/Punjab National Bank failed to send the clear image of the cheque in question, who tried to shift its burden claiming that it is only due to the system failure of the Opposite Party No.2 that no clear image was obtained.  This stand of Opposite Party No.1 is not acceptable at all as it completely failed to enquire the reason of cheque bouncing, when it duly accepted the cheque for clearance after due verification.  There is no averment that when Opposite Party No.1 accepted the cheque for clearance it was having any cutting or alteration, as claimed by Opposite Party No.2 in its reply.  

 

9]       Similarly, the Opposite Party No.2 did not take cajoles to enquire that why the image of the cheque is not complete as complete date was not visible on the image of the cheque and due to which the year is not clear. Nowhere it has reported properly that due to the absence of year of issuing the cheque, it was returned without clearing.  It is further observed that on both the occasions, the year of issuing the cheque could not get scanned.  Though the Opposite Party No.2 rightly not encashed the cheque being custodian of the public money.  But certainly at the same time its negligence to provide due service cannot be ignored, which caused not only gross harassment to the complainant mentally, but also forced him to undergo present litigation.

 

10]      From the above discussion, it is clear that both the Opposite Parties failed to perform due services and negligently handled the matter in question, which initially caused financial loss to the complainant to the tune of Rs.236/- (cheque bouncing charges), which Opposite Party No.1 reversed later, when the matter was taken up with them.  Now the complainant has full right to be compensated for the mental harassment he suffered while his duly presented cheque got bounced twice, which certainly have bothered him. From the reply to the legal notice of Opposite Party No.1, it is clear that the cheque bouncing charges were reversed in the account of the complainant, therefore, no such direction is required to be issued at this juncture.  But for the deficient services rendered by both the OPs, they deserves to be burned with cost. 

        

11]      In view of the above findings, the complaint stands allowed with direction to the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 to pay an amount of Rs.5000/- to the complainant i.e. Rs.2500/- each towards compensation, along with litigation cost of Rs.2000/- (to be paid Rs.1000/- each by both the OPs).

 

         This order shall be complied with by the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which they shall liable to pay penal cost of Rs.2000/- apart from above relief.

          Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules.

Announced

16^th October, 2019                                                                  Sd/-

 

 (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

                                                                                               

Sd/-

                                                                    (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER