Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/521/2013

Ram saran S/o Banarsi Dass - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab National Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Parvesh Bhargav

26 Feb 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR AT JAGADHRI.

                                                                                    Complaint No. 521 of 2013.

                                                                                    Date of institution: 19.07.2013

                                                                                    Date of decision: 26.02.2016

Ram Sharan aged about 48 years son of Shri Banarsi Dass resident of Village Jhiwerheri, Sub Tehsil Muystafabad, Tehsil Jagadhri, Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                                                                                                  

                                                                                                                                    …Complainant.

                                                        Versus

 

1. Punjab National Bank, Kheri Lakha Singh Branch, District Yamuna Nagar, through its Manager.
2. Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, Kheri Lakha Singh Branch, District Yamuna Nagar.

 

                                                                                                                       …Respondents.

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT.

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

                       

Present: Sh. Parvesh Bhargava, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

              Sh. Pardeep Walia, Advocate, counsel for respondents

 

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant  Ram Sharan has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection 1986.

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that complainant is having a saving account bearing No. 1355000100040029 as joint account with his wife with the respondents (hereinafter referred as OPs). As the complainant is an agriculturist as such he has also a KCC limit account No. 1355008800006136 and Krishi Card No. 886136 with the OPs bank. When on 13.5.2013 the complainant went to OPs bank to deposit Rs. 1000/- in his saving account then the OP No.2 Branch Manager of OP No.1 called the complainant and asked to deposit an amount of Rs. 90,000/- in his loan account of the complainant. The complainant when asked for reason, the OP No.2 i.e. Branch Manager of the Bank disclosed that he (i.e. Branch Manager) himself has transferred Rs. 90,000/- in his saving account from his loan account to fulfill his target. However, he promised not to repeat the said act in future. Thereafter, the complainant, some how, deposited Rs. 49000 and 51000/- on 25.3.2013 in his loan account to secure his loan account, despite the fact that he has never applied for the loan. On 31.5.2013, the OP No.2 again willingly transferred Rs. 100,000/- from loan account to the saving account of the complainant and on 1.6.2013 the said amount was withdrawn himself from the saving account and deposited in the loan account and again on 29.6.2013, the OP No.2 repeated the same story on 29.6.2013 and withdraw the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- from his loan account and deposited in the saving account which was withdrawn on 1.7.2013 and the same deposited again in loan account. The complainant on all the three abovesaid occasions did neither applied for loan nor gave any consent to advance the loan but the Op No.2 on his own motion and without expressed or implied consent of the complainant, by taking undue advantage of his position, is entering in the account of the complainant and is advancing and withdrawing the loan unnecessarily. Hence, there is a gross negligence and deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Lastly, prayed that OPs be directed to refrain to interfere in the accounts of complainant without any express consent of the complainant and further to pay Rs. 80,000/ on account of compensation and Rs. 12,000/- on account of litigation expenses. Hence this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice, OPs Bank appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable, no locus standi, estopped by his own act and conduct, no deficiency in service, without jurisdiction and on merit it has been mentioned that the complainant is having KCC Limit with the bank bearing account No. 1355008800006136 and Krishi Card No. 886136 and in the month of March 2013, an amount of Rs. 90,000/- was wrongly transferred in the saving account of the complainant but when the complainant has come to know about this fact, his intention has become dishonest and the complainant wrongly and illegally withdrew the huge amount from his account without giving any information to the Bank by using his ATM. When the OPs came to know about the illegal act of the complainant, he was called by the OPs to deposit the said amount which was deposited by the complainant near about after 1 month 20 days. All other allegations were specifically denied. In para No.4 and 5 of the written statement on merit has been admitted by the OPs that an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- was transferred on dated 1.6.2013 and 1.7.2013 in the loan account of the complainant due to technical/computer mistake and when the OP came to know about this fact the same amount has been got reversed back and the complainant has not suffered any loss and lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.                     To prove the case, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CX and documents such as Photo copy of pass book bearing account No. 1355008800006136 as Annexure C-1, Photo copy of pass book bearing account No. 1355000100040029 as Annexure C-2, Photo copy of PNB Krishi Card of Rs. 1,00,000/- as Annexure C-3, Photo copy of pass book bearing account No. 1355008800006136 as Annexure C-4 and closed the  evidence on behalf of complainant.  

5.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OP Bank tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Param Pal Chaudhary, Branch Manager, PNB as Annexure RW/A and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs. 

6.                     We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely and carefully.

7.                     It is admitted fact that the complainant was having saving account bearing No. 1355000100040029 alongwith KCC Limit account No. 1355008800006136 and was availing the facility of Krishi Card bearing No. 886136 with the OPs bank. The only version of the complainant is that Op No.2 Branch Manager of the OP No.1 has been withdrawing the amount from his loan account and deposited the same in his saving account again and again firstly he withdrew/debited an amount of Rs. 90,000/- on 30.3.2013 and secondly Rs. 1,00,000/- on 31.5.2013 and thirdly on 29.6.2013 which is evident from the entries mentioned in the pass book of loan account Annexure C-1 and again on 30.9.2013 a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- debited in his loan account which is evident from Annexure C-4 entries in the pass book and the same was reversed on 25.5.2013, 1.6.2013, 1.7.2013 and 1.10.2013 which is evident from entries mentioned in the passbook of saving account Annexure C-2 without the consent and permission of the complainant just to fulfill his target. Thus, the act of OP No.1 is totally against the principal of ethics of business which constitute deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Hence, the complainant is entitled to get compensation.

8.                     On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs argued that as the complainant has not suffered any financial loss and the amounts were transferred from the loan account to this saving account and the same were reversed from saving account to his loan account which was due to technical/computer mistake. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

9.                     After hearing both the parties, we are of the considered view that there is a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs as it is evident that        Rs. 90,000/- were firstly debited/withdrawn on 30.3.2013 from the loan account and the same was deposited in the saving account of the complainant and further Rs. 1,00,000/- on 31.5.2013 and thirdly on 1.6.2013 and fourthly on 30.9.2013 which is evident from the entries made in the pass book Annexure C-1, C-2 and C-4. We have gone through the written statement minutely and carefully filed by the Ops where the OPs has taken the stand that the amounts were withdrawn from the loan account and the same were deposited in his saving account due to technical/computer mistake which is neither digestible nor have any logic. It cannot be presumed that the computer transferred these amounts automatically without operating by anyone. This fact has not been denied on behalf of the OPs. It is not disputed that these amounts were not transferred from the loan account to saving account and the same were reversed from saving account to loan account. Although it may be that complainant has not suffered any financial loss as the complainant has not filed any evidence to prove this fact. Even then, the act of the Ops is illegal against the business ethics as the OPs failed to file any cogent evidence that the complainant ever directed or gave his consent or submit any voucher/cheque for transfer of the amount from his loan account to saving account and vice versa.

10.                    Hence, in these circumstances noted above, we are of the considered view that there is a great deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.

11.                   Resultantly we partly allow the complaint of complainant and direct the OPs to refrain to interfere in the accounts of complainant without any express consent of the complainant and further to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/-(ten thousand only) as compensation for mental agony, harassment as well as unfair trade practice. The OPs are further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1000/- (one thousand only) as litigation expenses. Order be complied within a period of 30 days after preparation of copy of this order failing which complainant shall be entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum as per law. However, the Bank is at liberty to recover the said amount from the erring officials/officers. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced :26.02.2016.

 

                                                                        (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                        PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                                        (S.C.SHARMA  )

                                                                        MEMBER