Punjab

Sangrur

CC/133/2019

Rupinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab National Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Lovepreet Singh Walia

06 Feb 2020

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                                                             

                                               

                                                                                       Complaint No.       133

                                                                                        Instituted on:  26.03.2019

                                                                                        Decided on:    06.02.2020

 

Rupinder Singh Dhiman son of Rajinder Singh, resident of #632, Gobindpura Basti, Sangrur 148001.

           

                                                …. Complainant  

                                Versus

 

Punjab National Bank, Branch Office: Gaushala Road, Sangrur through its Manager 148001.

                                          ..Opposite party

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT            : Shri  L.S.Walia, Advocate            

FOR THE OPP. PARTY                           : Shri Sonu Singla,  Advocate                         

 

Quorum:    Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President

                               Ms.Vandana Sidhu, Member

                   Shri V.K.Gulati, Member

 

Order by : Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President.

      

1.             Shri Rupinder Singh, complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite party (referred to as OP in short) on the ground that  the complainant is maintaining a saving bank account number 4878000100016825 with the OP. The case of the complainant is that the complainant presented a cheque no.506197 dated 14.6.2018 of Rs.80,000/- of State Bank of India, Branch Office, Sangrur in his above said bank account on 14.6.2018 which was issued by one Pargat Singh in favour of the complainant.  Further case of the complainant is that after 2/3 days the complainant visited the OP to know about the status of the encashment of the above said cheque which was stated to has been dishonoured. Therefore the complainant demanded the said cheque and dishonour memo from the OP, who told that the same will be sent by post on his address. But when the complainant did not receive the dishonoured cheque and memo from the OP then the complainant went to the OP and made entry in the passbook from where the complainant came to know that the said cheque has been dishonoured and the OP also deducted an amount of Rs.118/- from the account of the complainant on 15.6.2018 on this count.  Further case of the complainant is that though he approached the OP so many times to take back the cheque along with memo but all in vain.  Due to this the complainant is unable to take any legal action against said Pargat Singh under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OP, the complainant has prayed that the OP be directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.80,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum and further to pay compensation and litigation expenses.

2.             In reply filed by the OP, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable, that the complainant has not cause of action, that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint.   On merits, it is admitted that the complainant presented the cheque in question with the OP which has been dishonoured by the concerned bank.  It is further stated that the officials of the OP requested the complainant to collect the above said dishonoured cheque and memo but the complainant flatly refused to accept it.  The complainant did not give any written application to the officials of the bank for demanding the above said cheque and memo.  It is stated further that the cheque in question is lying with the bank as safe custody and the bank is always ready to deliver the same against proper receipt.

 

3.             The complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-2 and closed evidence. The learned counsel for OP has produced Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-5 copies of documents and closed evidence.

 

4.             We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the case file. 

5.             The learned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently that the complainant is maintaining a saving bank account number 4878000100016825 with the OP. Further case of the complainant is that the complainant presented a cheque no.506197 dated 14.6.2018 of Rs.80,000/- of State Bank of India, Branch Office, Sangrur in his above said bank account on 14.6.2018 which was issued by one Pargat Singh in favour of the complainant.  Further it is contended by the learned counsel for the complainant that after 2/3 days the complainant visited the OP to know about the status of the encashment of the above said cheque which was stated to has been dishonoured. Therefore the complainant demanded the said cheque and dishonour memo from the OP, who told that the same will be sent by post on his address. But when the complainant did not receive the dishonoured cheque and memo from the OP then the complainant went to the OP and made entry in the passbook from where the complainant came to know that the said cheque has been dishonoured and the OP also deducted an amount of Rs.118/- from the account of the complainant on 15.6.2018 on this count.  Further case of the complainant is that though he approached the OP so many times to take back the cheque along with memo but all in vain.  It is further contended by the learned counsel for the complainant that due to non returning of the cheque along with memo by the OP, the complainant was even  unable to take any legal action against said Pargat Singh under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act.

 

6.             On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP has contended vehemently that the complainant presented the cheque in question with the OP which has been dishonoured by the concerned bank.  It is further stated by the learned counsel for the OP that the officials of the OP requested the complainant to collect the above said dishonoured cheque and memo but the complainant flatly refused to accept it.  The complainant did not give any written application to the officials of the bank for demanding the above said cheque and memo.  It is stated further that the cheque in question is lying with the bank as safe custody and the bank is always ready to deliver the same against proper receipt.

 

7.             After hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, we find that the complainant has himself failed to approach the OP to collect the dishonoured cheque and memo when the OP offered the complainant to receive the dishonoured cheque and memo which is in possession of the OP.  There is no explanation from the side of the complainant that why he did not receive the same from the OP. It is worth mentioning here that even the complainant did not give any written representation to the OP to return the original dishonoured cheque and memo. Further the complainant has not arrayed as a party to Shri Pargat Singh, who issued the cheque number 506197 dated 14.6.2018 for Rs.80,000/- of State Bank of India, Branch Office, Sangrur to the complainant, which was a necessary party. There is no mention in the complaint that the complainant ever requested said Pargat Singh to issue another cheque for Rs.80,000/- or he has received the amount of Rs.80,000/- from him. But the complainant straight away filed the present complaint. As such, we hold that it is not a case of deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

 

8.             In the sequel of above discussion, we find no merit in the complaint and as such, the complaint is dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs.    A copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.

 

9.             This complaint could not be decided and order could not be pronounced within stipulated time period because posts of President and Lady Member are lying vacant since 7.8.2018 and 16.09.2018 respectively. The President is doing additional duty only for two days a week.                    

                Pronounced.

                February 6, 2020.

 

 

        (Vinod Kumar Gulati) (Vandana Sidhu) (Amrinder Singh Sidhu)

                 Member                    Member                  President