DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC No. 281 of 05-10-2009<br /> Decided on : 19-03-2010 <br /> <br /> M/s. Jai Ganpati Trading Corporation through its partners Arpan Jindal S/o Sushil Jindal R/o Veer Colony, Bathinda and Shop No. 5251, Sadar Bazar, Bathinda.<br /> ..... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1.Mohinder Pal Chief Manager/Officer Punjab National Bank, Kikar Bazar, Bathinda.<br /> 2.Punjab National Bank through its Chief Manager, Kikar Bazar, Bathinda.<br /> 3.Regional Manager, Punjab National Bank, Regional Office, Kikar Bazar, Bathinda.<br /> 4.Reserve Bank of India through its General Manager, Department of the banking supervision, New Office Building, Sector 17, Centra Vista Chandigarh.<br /> 5.Reserve Bank of India through its Assistant Manager, Sansad Marg, New Delhi.<br /> .. ... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection<br /> Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM <br /> <br /> Ms. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member <br /> Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member<br /> <br /> For the Complainant : Sh. Jai Gopal Goyal, Counsel for the complainant <br /> For the Opposite parties : Sh. R.N. Jain, counsel for <br /> opposite party Nos. 1 to 3. <br /> Opposite party Nos. 4 & 5 exparte. <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> 1. In brief, the case of the complainant is that he is partner of M/s. Jai Ganpati Trading Corporation and having account No. 3468002100033826 with Punjab National Bank Branch Kikar Bazar, Bathinda (here-in-after referred to as 'PNB'). He was having balance in his above said account as on 09-04-2009 of Rs. 90,593/- and Rs. 7,10,415/- on 10-04-2009, Rs. 9,60,315/- on 11-04-2009, Rs. 9,80,415/- as on 13-04-2009 Rs. 4,63,003/- whereas PNB wrongly, illegally and against law dishonoured the cheque No. 374559 amounting to Rs. 4,05764/- dated 13-04-2009 on false ground of “funds insufficient” although he was having an amount of Rs. 4,63,003/- in his account and banker has further debited an amount of Rs. 25/- on account of return of cheques. The parties in whose favour the said cheque was issued terminated the trading with him and demanded the amount of Rs. 4,79,871/- instead of Rs. 4,05,764/- through RTGS instead of cheques. The complainant alleged that the said act of opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 clearly shows malafide intention to damage and lower his image causing wrongful loss of Rs. 74,107/-, Rs. 250/-, Rs. 75/-, Rs. 19/- for purchasing the goods. Hence, this complaint for issuing directions to the opposite parties to make payment of Rs. 74,451/- together with interest and damages of Rs. 2,50,000/- alongwith costs.<br /> 2. The opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 filed joint reply and submitted that at present the entire system of maintaining accounts, withdrawl and deposit of amount and encashment of cheques is run by the computers and the system allows posting of cheques in the account where sufficient balance is available and raises exception “insufficient funds” if sufficient balance is not available and there may be an instance where some other branch has carved/debited the account by TM (transaction) but the same is pending for verification and in the meanwhile the posting run by the clearing back office will show insufficient funds in the account. It has been pleaded that complainant is holding account with the bank since 21-09-2009 and there remained no such like instance till that date.<br /> 3. Opposite party Nos. 4 & 5 filed separate joint reply by taking objection that complainant is not 'consumer'. It has been submitted that opposite party No. 3 vide its letter dated 15-09-2009 informed opposite party No. 4 that cheque in question was dishonoured at cheque clearing centre, New Delhi on 13-04-2009 and that they have taken up the matter with their Central office, New Delhi, to attribute the reasons under which circumstances cheque was returned when the complainant was having sufficient balance in his account. It has been pleaded that the complaint has not yet been closed at their end and there is no deficiency in service on their part.<br /> 4. Parties have led evidence besides filing affidavits in support of their respective pleadings.<br /> 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.<br /> 6. Grievance of the complainant is that he had a sum of Rs. 4,63,003/- in his account on 13-04-2009 whereas opposite party No. 2 bounced his cheque No. 374559 issued for Rs. 4,05,764/- allegedly for 'insufficient funds' as a result of which opposite party No. 2 debited Rs. 25/- to his account on return of cheque. He had also spent the amounts as detailed in para No. 3 of the complaint by making payment through RTGS instead of cheque to his dealer. He had also to spend some amount when he had stopped the payment of second cheque when he has already discharged his liability to a third party through RTG transaction. <br /> 7. In their joint reply, opposite party No. 1 to 3 have simply pleaded that cheque had bounced due to faulty computer system but they have not produced any evidence that their computer was really faulty on that date. There is also no evidence on the record to show that cheque of the complainant was processed by the opposite parties. Thus, there is no convincing plea or evidence on the record to show that cheque of the complainant had bounced due to fault in the computer.<br /> 8. Learned counsel for opposite party No. 1 to 3 submitted that any mistake committed by computer must be taken to be an act of God. Therefore, deficiency in this case, if any, was due to act of God. Consequently, the opposite parties are not liable for any deficiency in service. In support of his contention, he has relied upon Garhwal Mondal Bikash Nigam Vs. S M Aggarwal 1(1994) CPJ 1 (4) (WB).<br /> 9. It is well established principle of law that an act of God is an act which is absolutely beyond the reach of human mind. All natural calamities like earth quake, flood, Tsunami etc., are the acts of God whereas computer is the creation of human mind. The computer operator is supposed to cheque its working daily. If computer develop any fault that cannot be termed to be an act of God. Therefore, in the instant case precedent of law as initiated by the learned counsel for the opposite parties cannot be made applicable in the present case. Hence, the opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 are guilty of deficiency in service.<br /> 10. Resultantly, this complaint is accepted against opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 and dismissed qua opposite party Nos. 4 & 5. The opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 are directed to pay to the complainant an amount Rs. 294/- (Rs. 250/-+19/-+25/- for expenditures incurred by him on account of dischonour of his cheque in question, Rs. 10,000/- on account of mental harassment and Rs. 2,000/- as litigation expenses, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.<br /> A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned.<br /> Pronounced :<br /> 19-03-2010 <br /> (Vikramjit Kaur Soni)<br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Amarjeet Paul) (Dr. Phulinder Preet)<br /> *ik Member Member <br /> <br /> <br />