View 4462 Cases Against Punjab National Bank
Shallu Rani W/o Vinod Kumar filed a consumer case on 21 Mar 2016 against Punjab National Bank in the Yamunanagar Consumer Court. The case no is CC/377/2011 and the judgment uploaded on 18 Apr 2016.
BEFORE THE PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR AT JAGADHRI.
Complaint No. 377 of 2011.
Date of institution: 21.04.2011
Date of decision: 21.03.2016
Smt. Shallu Rani aged about 28 years wife of Sh. Vinod Kumar, resident of village Nawashahar, P.O. Haibatpur, District Yamuna Nagar.
…Complainant.
Versus
Punjab National Bank, Jagadholi, District Yamuna Nagar, through its Branch Manager.
…Respondent.
BEFORE: SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT.
SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.
Present: None for complainant.
Sh. Avinash Chadha, Advocate, counsel for respondent.
ORDER
1. Complainant 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 belongs to poor family and hence she had applied for loan amount for purchase of two buffalos with the respondent (hereinafter referred as OP Bank) and an amount of Rs. 17,000/- for one buffalo on dated 4.3.2008 was disbursed to the complainant. Thereafter, the OP Bank also disbursed second loan of Rs. 18500/- for purchase of another buffalo on dated 10.6.2009 to the complainant. The said loan was to be repaid in 60 monthly installments and the complainant was paying the installments of loan regularly but the OP Bank with malafide intention has served a false notice to the complainant alleging therein that a cheque issued by the complainant against the said loan has been dishonoured and after receipt of the said notice, the complainant approached the OP Bank and asked about the facts, whereupon the official of the OP Bank asked the complainant to deposit the installments and assured that they will withdraw the said notice. Then the complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 5000/- on 26.2.2011 and Rs. 3000/- on 28.2.2011. Inspite of this, the OP bank has filed a false complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act with section 420 IPC against the complainant on the false ground. On receipt the notice from the court under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act complainant visited the Manager of the OP Bank and requested to withdraw the complaint but the Manager of OP Bank misbehaved with her and used filthy language. The complainant has always remained ready and is still ready to pay the installments of loan with the Op Bank but the OP Bank by initiating false proceedings against the complainant has been unnecessarily harassing the complainant. Lastly prayed that OP be directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 20,000/-, besides this litigation expenses of Rs 7700/-. Hence this complaint. Complainant filed his short affidavit in support of his complaint and account statement as Annexure C-1 and insurance policies as Annexure C-2 to C-4 and receipt of depositing some amounts as Annexure C-5.
3. Upon notice OP Bank appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable, no locus standi, no cause of action, complainant has concealed the true and correct facts and on merit all the allegations mentioned in the complaint were denied being false and concocted. It has been further stated that complainant has never paid installments regularly and an amount of Rs. 31,736/- is outstanding against her including interest up to 31.3.2009 and her account was declared as NPA on 16.6.2010. However, it is admitted that a notice was issued under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act but inspite of this notice she never paid the cheque amount and thereafter as per law the bank has filed a criminal complaint which is pending in the Court of JMIC, Jagadhri. Lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs as the present complaint has been filed only to harass and humiliate the official of the OP Bank.
4. Both the parties remained failed to adduce any evidence, hence the evidence of complainant as well as OP Bank was closed by court order dated 15.9.2015 and 19.2.2016 respectively.
5. We have heard the counsel for the OP and have gone through the contents of complaint and documents filed by the complainant alongwith her complaint.
6. After going through the contents of the complaint, we are of the considered view that the present complaint has been filed by the complainant just to save her skin from the criminal liability under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act which was initiated by the Op Bank on account of not making the payment of the cheque. If the OP Bank have initiated the criminal proceedings as per law under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, then it cannot be said that there was any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OP Bank.
7. Resultantly, we find no merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. 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 in open court: 21.03.2016.
(ASHOK KUMAR GARG)
PRESIDENT
(S.C.SHARMA
MEMBER
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.