Haryana

Karnal

CC/81/2016

Radhika Verma W/o Shiv Poojan Verma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab National Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Sudhakar Mittal

08 Feb 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                         Complaint No.81 of 2016

                                                        Date of instt. 16.03.2016

                                                        Date of decision 08.02.2021

1. Radhika Verma wife of Shri Shiv Poojan Verma.

2. Shiv Poojan Verma son of Shri Ram Kishor Verma aged about 35 years.

Both resident of village House no.513-R, back side main market, Model town, Karnal.

     …….Complainants.

                                        Versus

1. Punjab National Bank, through its Manager, PNB branch, Railway Road, Karnal.

2. UCO Bank through its Sr. Branch Manager, UCO Bank branch, Nahan (H.P.).

                                                                ….opposite paties.

 

3. State Bank of Patiala through its Sr. Manager, SBP branch, Sector-13, Urban Estate, Karnal.

….. Performa Opposite Party.

 

4. Radhika Verma wife of Shri Suresh Verma, resident of House no.16, Moginand, Tehsil Nahan, District Sirmour (HP).

                                                                ……..Opposite party.

 

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

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh.Vineet Kaushik ………..Member

              Dr. Rekha Chaudhary……Member

 

 Present: Shri Sudhakar Mittal counsel for complainant.

                Shri Somesh Garg counsel for opposite party no.1.

                Shri Sudershan Chaudhary counsel for

        opposite party no.2.

        Shri Pardeep Gupta counsel for opposite party no.3.

        Opposite party no.4 exparte.

               

                (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:                    

 

                This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that on 22.01.2016 complainant no.2 issued a cheque bearing no.458001 amounting to Rs.10 lacs in favour of complainant no.1 from his State Bank of Patiala account bearing no.65113207982 and deposited the said in the saving bank account bearing no.3951000101166545 of complainant no.1 having with opposite party (hereinafter referred as to OP) no.1. The complainant no.1 handed over the cheque alongwith receipt of the same to the official of the OP no.1 but the official concerned told the complainant to drop the same in the drop box and assured him that the cheque amount will be credited in the account of complainant no.1. Complainant no.1 was in urgent need of money as she has to purchase a plot in her name at Karnal for that very purpose the aforesaid amount is to be utilized as advanced money. The complainants regularly remained in touch with the OP no.1 but the OP no.1 never bothered to give any satisfactory reply to the complainants regarding credit of the cheque amount. On 29.01.2016 when the complainants forcibly asked the officials of OP no.1 regarding credit of the cheque amount, he told the complainants and there is no entry in his record of the cheque and the same may be lying in drawer or anywhere else. He noted down the telephone number of complainants and assured them that the payment would be credited within one or two days and further told the complainants to update information regarding the cheque deposited by the complainants.

2.             On the same day the complainant no.2 went to Pehowa of official work and after taking lunch he enquired from the branch of OP no.3 regarding status of his bank account and came to know that the cheque for Rs.10 lacs has been cleared in the branch of the OP no.2. The complainant no.2 was shocked and surprised that how this cheque was encashed in UCO bank, Nahan Branch, Himachal Pardesh, when he himself deposited in the branch of OP no.1. The complainant immediately went to the branch of OP no.2 at Pehowa and requested the Manager to stop the payment of this amount from the branch of OP no.2. At first instance, he flatly refused to entertain the request of complainants and finally after going through the complete facts he agreed to forward the request of the complainants in his head office.

3.             Further, thereafter, complainant no.2 told the complainant no.1 to immediately to report the matter in the office of OP no.1. She without any loss of time approached the OP no.1 but despite repeated request nobody bother there to take care of the genuine complaint of the complainant and even further told her that its not possible that cheque deposited in its branch be encashed in the branch in OP no.2. The complainants registered their complaints through e-mail before the different authorities and official of the bank but nobody bothered to take responsibility and even tried to fix the responsibility of complainants for the encashment of the cheque in the branch of OP no.2. The complainants requested the OPs no.1 and 2 to registered the FIR before the police but they even refused to accompany the complaint to the police station and finally after several efforts complainant succeeded to get the FIR registered bearing no.0184 dated 17.02.2016 under section 379 IPC. Even after registration of the FIR the complainants are moving in the branches of OPs no.1 and 2 but till today there is no fruitful result came. The complainant is suffering since 29.01.2016 for their legally due amount and spent huge amount and time to get redressal from the competent authority. The complainants are entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- each and also entitled for the interest on their cheque amount. Due to non-payment and caring of cheque amount by the OPs in clear terms amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence complainants filed the present complaint.

4.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, OP no.1 appeared and filed written version raising preliminary objections with regard to jurisdiction; complainants are estopped to file and maintain the present complaint by their own act and conduct; locus standi and  concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that as per pleadings of the complaint that the complainant no.2 issued a cheque no.458001 amounting to Rs.10 lac from his saving account at State Bank of Patiala in favour of complainant no.1 and deposited the same in saving account of complainant no.1 with OP no.1 but OP no.1 did not credit the amount of cheque in the account of complainant no.1 within 2-3 days and after inquiry from State Bank of Patiala, it came to know that the amount of cheque is encashed in an unknown account of UCO bank, Nahan Branch, Himachal Pardesh and after their efforts, the amount of cheque was stopped for payment by UCO Bank, Nahan Branch. Whereas true facts of the case are that the complainants did not deposit any cheque with OP no.1 on 22.01.2016 nor was any receipt given to the complainants in this respect. It is further pleaded that OP no.1 has additional facility installed drop boxes at all branches of the bank to facilitate all its depositor who has to deposit his/her cheque in his/her account to drop the said cheque in the said drop box and that the officials of the bank clear said drop box every day and sent the said cheque for clearing to the respective bank after maintaining proper records for the same. The official of the OP no.1 did not find cheque in question on 25.01.2016 (since 23.01.2016 and 24.01.2016 was bank holiday0 in the drop box and as a result no cheque of the complainant was sent in clearing to State Bank of Patiala for collection of amount. It is further pleaded that on the complaint of other customers that they have drop their cheques in the drop box on 25.01.2016, OP no.1 came to know about the stolen of 5/6 cheques from the drop box of the OP no.1 and accordingly the OP no.1 just to facilitate the complainant for registration of FIR against unknown person, also lodged a complaint with SHO, Police Chowki, Sadar Bazar, Karnal since stop payment of all other cheques except cheque in question had been got marked to avert misuse of those cheques and as such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.1.                

5.             OP no.2 filed its separate written version stating therein that OP  no.2 has immediately ceased the account in which cheques in question was encashed and secure the money of the complainant. OP no.2 has requested to take order from the appropriate court to release the amount in his favour but complainant wanted to release the amount immediately which was refused by the OP no.2 for want of order from appropriate court of Karnal and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.2.

6.             OP no.3 is a Performa opposite party and there is no relief against the OP no.3. Hence OP no.3 filed no written version.

7.             OP no.4 did not appear and proceeded against exparte, vide order of this Commission dated 21.01.2021.

8.             Complainant tendered into evidence her affidavit Ex.CW1/A, photocopy of passbook Ex.C1, email Ex.C2 and Ex.C3, account opening form Ex.C4, Aadhar card Ex.C5, specimen signature of Radhika Verma Ex.C7, transaction enquiry Ex.C8, e-mail Ex.C9, copy of FIR Ex.C10, photo copy of pass book Ex.C11, application of complainant to OP no.2 Ex.C12 and Ex.C13, email Ex.C14 and closed the evidence on 07.10.2016, vide separate statement.

9.             OP no.1 tendered into evidence affidavit Rajeev Kumar Senior Manager Ex.OP1/A, application to SHO Police Choki Sadar Bazar Ex.OP1/B and Ex.OP1/C, copy of application regarding misplace of cheque Ex.OP1/D, copy of application to OP no.1 by complainant Ex.OP1/E, copy of application dated 1.2.2016 Ex.OP1/F, copy of FIR Ex.OP1/G, copy of application to OP no.1 regarding found of cheque Ex.OP1/H and email Ex.OP1/I and closed the evidence on 08.03.2017, vide separate statement.

10.           OP no.2 tendered into evidence account opening form Ex.OP2/1, voter card of Radhika Verma Ex.OP2/2, Aadhar card of Radhika Verma Ex.OP2/3, statement of account Ex.OP2/4, copy of application of Shiv Poojan Verma to OP no.2 Ex.OP2/5, email Ex.OP2/6, application about found of cheque Ex.OP2/7, copy of FIR Ex.OP2/8, copy of letter dated 25.02.2016 Ex.OP2/9 and copy of GPA Ex.OP2/10 and closed the evidence on 22.09l.2017.

11.           We have heard the learned counsel of both the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

12.           Learned counsel for complainants argued that complainant No.2 i.e. Shiv Poojam Verma issued a cheque for an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rs.Ten lacs only) in favour of his wife namely Radhika Verma i.e. complainant No.1. The said cheque was deposited with OP No.1 (Punjab National Bank) for crediting in her account and on the instructions of the OP No.1, the complainant No.1 dropped the same in the drop box of OP No.1 on 22.01.2016, but same could not be encashed till 29.01.2016. 

13.           He further argued that on 29.01.2016, it has come to the notice of the OP No.2 that the abovesaid cheque had cleared/ encashed in the branch of Op No.2 (UCO Bank, Nahan Branch, Himachal Pradesh). On knowing this, complainant No.2 was shocked and surprised. Complainant No.2 immediately stopped the payment of cheque amount and moved an application in this regard to UCO Bank, Branch at Pehowa. The complainants registered their complaints through e-mail before the different authorities and officers of bank but nobody bother to take the responsibility for encashment of cheque in branch of OP No.2. On enquiry, it was came to the notice of the complainants that 5/6 cheques have been stolen from the drop box of branch of OP No.1. On the advice of OP No.1, complainant got lodged FIR under Section 379 of IPC in Police Station City, Karnal. The complainant neither issued cheque in favour of OP No.4 nor known to her. The said cheque was issued in favour of complainant No.1 by complainant No.2 and same was wrongly and intentionally got credited in the account of OP No.4 by the OPs No.1 to 3 in collusion with each other and lastly prayed for allowing the present complaint.

14.           Per-contra, learned counsel for OP No.1 argued that the complainant No.1 never deposited any cheque with the OP No.1 on 22.01.2016 nor in this regard, any receipt had been issued by OP No.1. It is not disputed that an additional facility of drop boxes at every branches is installed in order to facilitate all its customers. It is also not disputed that the complainant No.1 is the account holder of OP No.1. When OP No.1 came to know that five or six cheques from the drop box have been stolen and accordingly, the OP no.1 just to facilitate the complainant for registration of FIR against unknown person. The officials of the OP No.1 never assured the complainant No.1 that the amount of cheque would be credited in her account. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1 and prayed for dismissal of complaint. 

15.           Learned counsel for OP No.2 argued that OP No.4 i.e. Radhika Verma had opened an account on completion of all the requisite formalities and also submitted copies of Aadhaar Card and Voter Card. On receiving the complaint, the OP No.2 immediately ceased the account in which amount was credited and secured the money of complainant. The cheque amount is still lying with OP No.2. OP No.4 neither visited to the branch nor claimed the said amount. Officials of the OP No.2 tried to know the whereabouts of OP No.4 but to no vain. There is no deficiency on the part of OP No.2 and prayed for dismissal of complaint. 

16.           Learned counsel for OP No.3 argued that no relief has been sought from OP No.3 by the complainant. The only role of OP No.3 is that the cheque which was issued by complainant No.2 was belonging to the branch of OP No.3 and on issuance of the same by the complainant No.2 the same was credited by OP No.3 as per guidelines of RBI. The OP No.3 has no fault at all and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

17.           Admittedly, the cheque for an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- (Ten Lacs only) was issued in favour of complainant No.1 by complainant No.2. It is also admitted that complainant No.1 is the customer of OP No.1 and complainant No.2 is customer of OP No.3. It is also admitted that cheque in question was presented with OP No.1 and same was credited in the account of OP No.4. It is also admitted that the cheque amount is still lying with OP No.2. 

18.           As per the version of complainant No.1, she presented the cheque in question with OP No.1 for crediting the amount in her account with the branch of OP No.1. It is not disputed that there was a drop box facility in the branch of OP No.1 and all the cheques were being dropped by all the customers in the drop box. It is also not disputed that five or six cheques were stolen from the branch of OP No.1.

19.           OP No.1 has simply denied that neither cheque in question was presented nor any receipt was issued by them to the complainant No.1. When the drop box facility is being provided to the customers, the question for issuance of receipt does not arise at all.  As per the complainant, the cheque in question was deposited on 22.01.2016 for encashment, on 29.01.2016 it has come into knowledge of complainant that the cheque was encashed at UCO Bank Nahan Branch, Himachal Pradesh i.e. OP No.2 and in this regard a complaint was lodged by the complainants to OP No.1. In order to prove the fact that complainant No.1 never visited to the branch of OP No.1, the OP No.1 should have checked the CCTV footage but they did not do so. It was the duty of OP No.1 to prove their version while leading cogent and convincing evidence but they failed to lead the same. Hence, the plea taken by OP No.1 is not tenable.

20.           It was the duty of OP No.1 to keep the cheques in its safe custody but they did not do so, hence, the 5/6 cheques were stolen from their branch. Furthermore, despite the fact that 5/6 cheques were stolen from the branch of OP No.1, they did not lodge any complaint/FIR, rather shifted its burden upon the complainants. Due to the aforesaid act of OP No.1, the complainants suffered a lot and spent more than five years in an unwanted litigation, in order to receive their own amounts. Hence, the act of OP No.1 amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. 

21.           On the instructions of OP No.1, complainants lodged FIR Ex.C10 (OP2/8) in Police Station City, Karnal. The investigation of this case was carried out by the police of concerned police station but neither OP No.4 nor her whereabouts was found to the police and ultimately on 20.07.2016, the police filed untraced report before the Illaqa Magistrate. 

22.           The OP No.2 was moved an application before the Predecessor of this Commission for impleading Radhika Verma  as party in the present complaint but the same was dismissed vide order dated 13.10.2017. Aggrieved to the order passed by this Commission, OP No.2 filed a revision petition before Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, at Panchkula which was allowed vide order dated 30.01.2019 and Radhika Verma was impleaded as party in the present complaint as OP No.4.  

23.           OP No.4 was the customer of OP No.2, hence, this Commission directed OP No.2 to submit her address before this Commission in order to get the service of OP No.4 effected but OP No.2 failed to supply the particulars/address of OP No.4. OP No.2 is the best platform who can supply the address/ particulars of OP No.4 before this Commission so that service of OP No.4 be effected but he failed to supply the same. 

 24           Thereafter, this Commission adopted all the methods including publication in order to get the service of OP No.4 effected but all  in vain and finally OP No.4 was proceeded against ex-parte. 

25.           The best agency is the police, who has also failed to know the whereabouts of OP No.4 and filed untraced report before the learned Illaqa Magistrate.

26.           The cheque amount is a huge amount i.e. Rs.10,00,000/- which is still lying with the OP No.2 and no one has come to claim the same till today. The account in the name of Radhika Verma was opened a day before presentation of cheque in the branch of OP No.2. From the perusal of the account opening form Ex. OP2/1, it is crystal clear that there is no identifier to identify the alleged Radhika Verma, which is a necessary requirement for opening an account in any bank. It also reveals that some of the columns in the account opening forms are blanks. Despite of that the account was opened which proves that the account was opened by OP No.4 in collusion with OP No.2 in order to grab the said huge amount. Hence, we are of the considered view that act of OP No.2 also amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. 

27.           The said amount of Rs.10,00,000/- is lying with the OP No.2 from 29.01.2016. The complainants requested so many times to the OPs to release the said amount but they did not bother the request of the complainants. Due to the aforesaid act of the OPs, the complainants were dragged in the unwanted litigation upto the Hon’ble State Commission and is pursuing the same from the last more than five years. It is OP No.2 who is availing benefits of the said huge amount from the last more than five years.  Hence, the complainants are entitled for the said amount alongwith interest at the rate which is being payable on the long term FDR. 

28.           Keeping in view the act and conduct of the OP No.1 as discussed above, OP No.1 is liable to pay, heavy compensation as well as litigation expenses to the complainants.  

29.           Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OP no.2 to release Rs.10,00,000/- alongwith interest from 29.01.2016 at the rate which is being paid on the long term FDR. We also direct the OP no.1 to pay Rs.50,000/- to the complainants on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by them and Rs.11,000/- for the litigation expenses. This order shall be complied within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated the order accordingly, and the file be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 08.02.2021                                                                    

                                                                      President,

                                                      District Consumer Disputes

                                                      Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

       

         (Vineet Kaushik)               (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

            Member                              Member