Rakesh Kumar son of Sh.Om Parkash Anand resident of Anand Kutir, Krishan Nagar, Kapurthala.<br /> Complainant.<br /> Versus<br /> 1. Punjab National Bank branch Tibba, District Kapurthala through its Branch Manager.<br /> 2. H.D.F.C. Bank, branch The Mall, Kapurthala through its Manager.<br /> Opposite parties.<br /> Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act.<br /> Quoram : Sh.A.K. Sharma President.<br /> Sh.Surinder Mittal, Member.<br /> Present : Complainant in person,<br /> Sh.S.K. Wadhwa counsel for opposite party No.1.<br /> JUDGMENT (SH.A.K. SHARMA PRESIDENT.)<br /> Present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date has been filed by complainant Rakesh Kumar against opposite parties i.e. Punjab National Bank through its Branch Manager and also HDFC Bank through its Manager seeking direction against them for refund of amount of Rs.146-/- illegally charged against unpaid cheque alongwith interest and also for monetary compensation on account of deficiency in its service.<br /> 2. Briefly stated claim of the complainant is that he is having Saving Account No. 1381000015534 with opposite party No.2 i.e. HDFC Bank and deposited one cheque bearing No.582741 on 26/3/2007 for a sum of Rs. 6 Lacs only in his said Saving Account. It is averred that opposite party No.2 sent the said cheque to opposite party No.1 in clearance and opposite party No.1 returned the said cheque unpaid alongwith memo for reason 'refer to drawer as the drawer had made stop payment of the said cheque issued in favour of complainant. It is alleged that opposite party No.2 debited Rs.1460/- from his Saving Account on account of unapid cheque to him despite the fact that he lodged protest with opposite party No.2 for its unfair trade practice. Opposite party NO.1 simply returned the said cheque unapid without providing any service and charged Rs.1460/- which amounts to deficiency in service for which he is entitled to the reliefs claimed.<br /> 3. Opposite party No.2 failed to appear despite service and was proceeded exparte. However, opposite party No.1 i.e. Punjab National Bank appeared through counsel and controverted allegations of the complainant and resisted his claim. Preliminary objections have been raised that complainant is not a consumer of opposite party No.1 and has no cause of action to file the complaint against opposite party No.1. On merits it is pleaded that opposite party No.2 presented the cheque in question through its Ludhiana branch with opposite party NO.1 i.e. Punjab National Bank at its Tibba branch for collection'. The drawer of the cheque stopped the payment as he stated that he had already paid the amount of the cheque in question to the complainant and requested the complainant not to present the said cheque in the Bank which was in the knowledge of the complainant. So the cheque was returned unpaid to opposite party No.2 through its Ludhianan branch as per bank rules. . Opposite party No.1 followed the rules and regulations of the circular of the bank RBD/17/2006 dated 24.4.2006 applicable w.e.f. 1.5.2006 under which the bank is entitled to charge Rs.75/- out of pocket expenses or 50% of the collection charges whichever is higher. As per bank rules the collection charges of outstation cheques above Rs.10,000/- is Rs.4.50 per Rs.2000/- as mentioned at Sr.No.1 (ii) heading collection services. Therefore, opposite party NO.1 rightly charged 50% of the collection charges on unpaid outstation cheque in question amounting to Rs6 lacs which comes to Rs.1350/-. As per bank rules, opposite party No.1 i.e. Punjab National Bank returned 50% of Rs.1350/- which comes to Rs. 675/- to the opposite party No.2 i.e. HDFC Bank through its Ludhiana Branch as per bank rules mentioned at Sr.No.4 (iv) charges on inward collection (Bank to Bank ) remittance charges to be collected from the drawee. Therefore, it is denied that opposite party No.1 had charged Rs.1460/-. Therefore, opposite party No.1 justified charges of Rs.1350/- as per bank rules and regulations and does not constitute unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party No.1.<br /> 4. In support of his version complainant Rakesh Kumar tendered in evidence his own affidavit Ex.C1 and documents Ex.C2 to C6.<br /> 5. On the other hand opposite party No.1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Sanjay Kumar Branch Manager Ex.O1 and documents Ex.D1 to D3.<br /> 6. We have heard arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused ocular as well as documentary evidence on the record. The main thrust of arguments of learned counsel for the complainant is that opposite party No.1 i.e. Punjab National Bank branch Tibba District Kapurthala illegally recovered Rs.1460/- in the name of OPI charges without doing anything on its part as the drawer had made stop payment against the cheque in question and cheque amounting to Rs.6 lacs was never credited in his account and as such it amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party No.1 i.e. PNB.. On the other hand learned counsel for opposite party No.1 has counterargued that firstly, impleadment of opposite party No.1 i.e. Punjab National Bank is not necessary as the complainant is not a consumer qua it. Secondly Punjab National Bank branch Tibba has justified deduction of 50% of the charges under clause 8 of Retail Banking Fee deposits circular No.17 dated 24.4.2006 applicable w.e.f. 1.5.2006 in respect of returning of outstation cheques and as such recovery of VPL charges is valid and legal as per bank rules.<br /> 7. We have considered rival contentions of counsel for the parties. We do not find merit in the contentions of learned counsel for the complainant. These broad facts are not disputed that complainant is having Saving Account No.1381000015534 with the HDFC Bank branch Kapurthala and he deposited cheque bearing No.682741 dated 26/3/2007 for a sum of Rs.6 lacs vide Ex.C5 in his Saving Account. The same was sent for clearance to Punjab National Bank Branch Tibba and it was returned as unpaid alongwith memo referred to vide Ex.C2. There is also debit entry of Rs.1460/- vide Ex.C3 as VPL charges in the account of the complainant with HDFC Bank. Complainant protested to HDFC Bank vide letter Ex.C4 dated 2/5/07 against debit of Rs.1460/- for unapid cheque and to which HDFC Bank duly replied vide Ex.C6 that drawer of cheque had intimated to stop the payment and as such cheque was not honoured and these VPL charges were recovered by Punjab National Bank Tibba branch against returned unapid cheque No.682741 which their Bank had sent for collection. Sanjay Kumar Branch Manager , Punjab National Bank Tibba Branch has clarified vide affidavit Ex.O1 that as per circular of the Bank RBD/17/2006 dated 24/4/06 applicable with effect from 1.5.2006 vide Ex.D1 under the heading of cheques/bills returned unpaid i.e. Returning charges/Handling charges. At Sr.No.8 returning of outstation cheques/bills as per clause 8 (ii) cheques above Rs.10,000/- i the bank will charge Rs.75/- out of pocket expenses or 50 % of the collection charges whichever is higher. He further stated that as per bank rules, the collection charges on outstation cheques above Rs.10,000/- is Rs.4.50/- per Rs.1000/- as mentioned at Sr.No.1 (ii) heading collection services. The opposite party NO.1 i.e. Punjab National Bank charged 50% of the collection charges on unpaid outstation cheque in question amounting to Rs.6 lacs which comes to Rs.1350/-. As per bank rules, PNB returned 50% of Rs.1350/- which comes to Rs.675/- yp opposite party No.2 HDFC Bank through its Ludhiana branch as per bank rules mentioned at Sr.No. 4(iv) charges on inward collection (bank to bank)...Remittance charges Bank has no branch commission to be shared on 50-50 basis. So the opposite party No.1 charged Rs.675/- plus Rs.40/- as postage charges. It is denied that opposite party No.1 charged Rs.1460/- because draft bearing No. 774556 dated 7/1/2008 was sent to opposite party No.2 HDFC Bank and the forwarding letter of said draft is Ex.D3. We find clarification given by Sanjay Kumar vide affidavit Ex.O1 tenable in the light of clause 8 of the bank circular regarding returning of outstation cheques irrespectable fact that cheque was not cashed and remained unpaid on account of stoppage of payment by its drawer. Secondly complainant cannot be held consumer qua opposite party No.1 i.e. PNB Tibba branch as the cheque was never presented by the complainant with it but to its own banker HDFC Bank branch Kapurthala which sent cheque in question through its Ludhiana branch to PNB Tibba branch for collection. Precisely speaking it was inter banking transaction regarding the collection of the charges by Punjab National Bank on bank to bank basis and complainant has not availed any direct services from HDFC Bank nor collection charges were debited by PNB Bank from the account of the complainant because debit entry has been made in the account of the complainant by HDFC Bank branch Kapurthala. Be that as it may, collection of the charges is perfectly justified as per clause 8 of the bank rules Ex.D1.<br /> In the ultimate analysis of aforesaid discussion, finding no merit in this complaint, same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. <br /> Let certified copies of judgment rendered be supplied/despatched to the parties without any unnecessary delay and thereafter file be consigned to record room.<br /> <br /> Announced : ( Surinder Mittal ) ( A.K. Sharma )<br /> 22.4.2008 Member President.<br /> Rakesh Kumar vs. PNB<br /> 22/4/08 Present : Counsel for the parties,<br /> Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs. File be consigned to record room.<br /> <br /> Member President.