DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.

 

Consumer Complaint No.: CC/137/2018

Date of Institution : 30.10.2018

Date of Decision : 19.08.2019

M/s G.S. Food Industries, Rureke Kalan, District Barnala through its Sole Proprietor Deepak Garg son of sh. Vijay Kumar resident of Bagh Colony, Tapa, Tehsil and District Barnala.     

           …Complainant

Versus

1. Punjab National Bank Branch Pakho-Kalan, District Barnala, through its Branch Manager/Authorized Representative.

2. HDFC Bank Ltd., SCO No. 189-190-191, 2nd Floor, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager/Authorized Representative.

        …Opposite Parties

Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act,1986.

Present: Sh. Mohit Garg counsel for the complainant.

Opposite parties exparte.

Quorum.-

1. Sh. Kuljit Singh : President

2. Sh. Tejinder Singh Bhangu : Member

3. Smt. Manisha : Member

(ORDER BY TEJINDER SINGH BHANGU MEMBER):

  The complainant namely M/s G.S. Food Industries, Rureke Kalan through its Proprietor Deepak Garg has filed the present complaint under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (As amended up to date) against Punjab National Bank, Pakho Kalan and another. (hereinafter referred as opposite parties).  

2. The brief facts of the present complaint as stated by the complainant are that the complainant is the sole proprietor of the firm engaged in the business of manufacturing cattle feed and said Deepak Garg is the sole proprietor of this Forum who is earning his livelihood through the said business. He purchased raw material from one Kemin Nutritional Technologies (I) Pvt. Ltd., Chennai. 

3. It is further alleged that the complainant purchased raw material from said firm vide bill dated 1.5.2018 for Rs. 1,48,000/-, bill dated 25.4.2018 for Rs. 6,44,100/- and bill dated 10.5.2018 for Rs. 2,000/-. He was awarded 3% cash discount on said purchase due to his good conduct of business. Further, for payment of these bills the complainant issued cheque No. 923513 dated 7.5.2018 for Rs. 6,24,777/- and cheque No. 923515 dated 11.5.2018 for Rs. 1,43,560/-. The complainant had sufficient balance in his account No. 4809002100000369 maintained with opposite party No. 1. Both the said cheques were issued from the said account of the complainant believing that the same shall be cleared by opposite party No. 1 as and when presented for realization. But the complainant was told by the bearer of the said two cheques that both the cheques have been returned unpaid by the opposite party No. 2 which were sent to the complainant alongwith their respective memos. On this to maintain future relationship the complainant again issued fresh cheques bearing cheque No. 923518 dated 14.5.2018 for Rs. 6,24,777/- and cheque No. 923520 dated 15.5.2018 for Rs. 1,43,560/- from the said account of the complainant. But these cheques were also returned unpaid which were again sent to the complainant alongwith respective memos.  

4. It is further alleged that then the complainant visited the opposite party No. 1 and after showing them cheques and memos inquired about the reason for return of the said cheques whereas the complainant has been maintaining sufficient balance in his account to honor the said cheques. But the bank officials tried to put the onus on opposite party No. 2 and ordered the complainant to approach the opposite party No. 2. On 1.8.2018 the opposite party No. 1 provided the account statement to the complainant which clearly shows that when the cheques were being returned unpaid he was having sufficient amount in his account to pay the amount of the cheques. Further, complainant was surprised to see that the opposite party No. 1 had deducted Rs. 590/- from his account from return of the above said cheques. The complainant found that the cheque No. 923520 though returned unpaid but the account statement does not contain the relevant entry of this cheque. Then the complainant on 6.6.2019 transferred an amount of Rs. 7,94,100/- to Kemin Industries through RTGS which is reflected in the account statement provided by the opposite party. The opposite party No. 2 not sent the fourth cheque No. 923520 for realization to opposite party No. 1 but instead returned the cheque straightway. The opposite parties mentioned the reason for return of cheque is ambiguous and fictitious. The complainant paid the amount after losing 3% cash discount and also suffered humiliation for which there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs:-

1) The opposite party may be directed to pay Rs. 25,763/- to the complainant on account of extra amount paid by the complainant due to return of cheques.  

2) To pay Rs. 1,770/- on account of charges which have been deducted by opposite party No. 1 for cheque return charges.  

3) To pay Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of non pecuniary damages suffered by the complainant.

4) To pay Rs. 25,000/- as litigation expenses.

5) Any other fit and proper relief to which the complainant found entitle may be granted.    

5. The opposite party No. 1 not appeared before this Forum despite service, so the opposite party No. 1 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 8.1.2019. Initially, the opposite party No. 2 appeared through their representative but later on none appeared on behalf of opposite party No. 2 so the opposite party No. 2 was also proceeded against exparte vide order dated 8.1.2019. 

6. The complainant in order to support his complaint has tendered in evidence his own affidavit as Ex.CW-1/A, copy of bill dated 1.5.2018 as Ex.C-1, copy of bill dated 25.4.2018 as Ex.C-2, copy of bill dated 10.5.2018  as Ex.C-3, cheques No. 923513 and 923515 dated 7.5.2018 and 11.5.2018  Ex.C-4 and Ex.C-5 respectively, copies of memos for cheque No. 923513 and 923515 dated 14.5.2018 as Ex.C-6 and Ex.C-7, cheque No. 923518 and 923520 dated 14.5.2018 and 15.5.2018 as Ex.C-8 and Ex.C-9, respective memos for cheques No. 923518 and 923520 as Ex.C-10 and Ex.C-11, copy of account statement as Ex.C-12 and closed the evidence. 

7. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the record on the file. Written arguments filed by the complainant have also gone through. 

8. It is proved on the file by the complainant that he is having a Current Account with the opposite party No. 1 vide cheques Ex.C-4, Ex.C-5, Ex.C-8 and Ex.C-9 in which the account number of the complainant is mentioned. It is also proved by the complainant vide bills Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-3 that he has purchased material from the Kemin Industries for a total amount of Rs. 7,94,100/- on 3.5.2018, 26.4.2018 and 11.5.2018 respectively. It is also proved by the complainant vide cheques Ex.C-4 dated 7.5.2018 and Ex.C-5 dated 11.5.2018 that he has issued the same in favour of Kemin Industries for payment of bill dated 26.4.2018 and 3.5.2018 respectively after deducting 3% cash discount as mentioned by the complainant in his complaint and affidavit Ex.CW-1/A. The complainant also duly proved on the file that these cheques were dishonoured by the opposite party No. 2 vide memos Ex.C-6 and Ex.C-7 without mentioning any proper reason as the complainant had sufficient balance in his above mentioned account from which these cheques were issued by him which fact is duly proved by him vide account statement Ex.C-12. We also observed that these cheques are in order. The complainant also proved on the file that due to return of cheques Ex.C-4 and Ex.C-5 he again issued cheques Ex.C-8 dated 14.5.2018 and Ex.C-9 dated 15.5.2018 for the same amount as of Ex.C-4 and Ex.C-5 respectively but these cheques were also dishonoured by the opposite party No. 2 vide memos Ex.C-10 and Ex.C-11 again without mentioning any proper reason. This time also he has sufficient balance in his current account to honor these cheques. The complainant also proved on the file that due to return of these cheques twice he has to made full payment of bills Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-3 on 6.6.2018 through RTGS which fact is duly proved from the account statement Ex.C-12. In this way, he has to suffer loss of discount of Rs. 23,763/- due to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. 

9. The complainant approached the opposite party No. 1 to know the reason of dishonouring of cheque but he put the onus on opposite party No. 2 who has also not mentioned any clear reason to dishonour these cheques in their memos Ex.C-6, Ex.C-7, Ex.C-10 and Ex.C-11, so due to deficiency of service on the part of either of the opposite party the complainant has to suffer loss of discount of Rs. 23,763/- at the rate of 3% of the bill amount of Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-2. It is also proved from the account statement Ex.C-12 that even opposite party No. 1 deducted amount of Rs. 590/- three times on 14.5.2018, 15.5.2018 and 17.5.2018 without any fault of the complainant. 

10. To rebut the case of the complainant the opposite parties did not appear before this Forum and not filed any written version or evidence on the file which shows that the opposite parties have nothing to say against the claim of the complainant and they cannot produce any document to rebut the case of the complainant. On the other hand the complainant has proved his case beyond any doubt by leading cogent, convincing and reliable evidence on the file which is un-rebutted and uncontested. So, we are of the view that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of both the opposite parties. We also observed that due to this conduct of the opposite parties the reputation and credibility of the complainant has suffered a great loss in the business fraternity specially with Kemin Industries South Asia Private Limited. 

11. In view of the above discussion, the present complaint is partly allowed and both the opposite parties jointly and severally directed to pay  the amount of Rs. 23,763/- to the complainant on account of loss suffered by him due to deficiency in service on the part of both the opposite parties alongwith interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of payment made by the complainant i.e. 6.6.2018 till actual realization. The opposite party No. 1 is also directed to refund the amount of Rs. 1,770/- to the complainant which they have deducted from his account due to dishonour of cheques. Both the opposite parties are also jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant as consolidated amount of compensation on account of mental tension, harassment and litigation expenses. The opposite parties are also directed to deposit Rs. 2,000/- each as costs in the Consumer Legal Aid Account maintained by this Forum. Compliance of above said order be made by opposite parties within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.

  ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM:

19th Day of August 2019

 

 

            (Kuljit Singh)

           President

 

           (Tejinder Singh Bhangu)                Member

 

 

(Manisha)

Member