DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .
Complaint No. 86
Instituted on: 01.03.2019
Decided on: 01.03.2021
Davinder Pal son of Madan Lal R/o Dhuri Road, Malerkotla, District Sangrur.
…. Complainant.
Versus
1. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall, Patiala through its CMD.
2. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. Assistant Engineer (XEN) City Sub Division No.1, Satta Bazar, Malerkotla.
3. HDFC Bank , Branch Malerkotla through its Branch Manager.
….Opposite parties.
For the complainant: : Shri S.S.Ratol, Adv.
For the OPs 1&2 : Shri Mohit Verma, Adv.
For the OP No.3 : Shri S.S. Punia, Adv.
Quorum: Shri Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President
Shri V.K.Gulati, Member
ORDER:
Shri Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President
FACTS
1. Shri Davinder Pal, complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties pleading that the complainant is a consumer of the OPs number 1 and 2 by obtaining one electric connection bearing account number 3002950874 at his premises and has been paying the electricity bills regularly. Further it is averred that the OPs issued bill dated 1.6.2018 for Rs.8710/- payable upto 11.6.2018 and to clear the said bill, the complainant issued a cheque number 000165 dated 11.6.2018 for Rs.8710/- drawn at HDFC Bank Malerkotla and at that time the complainant was having sufficient balance in his account. But the grievance of the complainant is that the OP number 3 i.e. bank dishonoured the said cheque on 13.6.2018 on the account of other reasons i.e. connectivity failure. The OP number 2 informed the complainant regarding the dishonour of the cheque. Further case of the complainant is that thereafter the complainant visited the OP number 2 to clear the dues in cash but they refused to accept the same. Thereafter the OP number 2 issued another bill dated 5.7.2018 for Rs.24,330/- (including Rs.8710/- of previous bill). The complainant deposited the said amount under protest of bill dated 1.6.2018 vide DD number 037895 dated 5.7.2018 and the remaining amount was deposited vide draft for the amount of Rs.16,120/- dated 16.7.2018 including late charges. It is further averred that dishonour of the cheque by OP number 3 has caused great mental agony and harassment. Thus, the complainant got served a legal notice upon the OPs on 23.10.2018, but the same was not replied. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the Opposite parties be directed to restore the facility of paying the bill through cheque, to refund the amount of Rs.600/- on account of late charges and to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation and further to pay Rs.55,000/- as compensation and litigation expenses.
WRITTEN VERSION
2. In reply filed by the OPs number 1 and 2, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant has not come to this Commission with clean hands and has no cause of action to file the complaint, that the complainant has dragged the OPs into unnecessary litigation and that this Commission has got no jurisdiction to hear and decide the complaint.
3. On merits, it is admitted that the electric connection is running in the premises of the complainant under Domestic category. It is further stated that the OPs issued bill for Rs.8710/- to the complainant and accordingly the complainant issued cheque for Rs.8710/-, but the OP number 3 dishonoured the cheque and the liability to pay the bill by the complainant was not cleared. As the cheque amount was not cleared due to technical fault on the bank and the same facts are voluntarily admitted by the parties. Moreover the bank has charged an amount of Rs.177/- from PSPCL. It is stated further that there was some technical problem in the server of the OP number 3, as such the cheque in question was not cleared. However, any deficiency in service on the part of OP number 1 and 2 has been denied.
4. In reply filed by OP number 3, some preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant has unnecessarily dragged the OP into unwanted litigation, that the complainant has got no locus standi to file the present complaint and that the complainant has not come to the Commission with clean hands. On merits, it is admitted that the OP dishonoured the cheque in question on 13.6.2018 on account of other reason i.e. connectivity failure. It is further admitted that OP intimated the complainant that all the cheques issued by the different parties have been dishonoured on account of connectivity failure on that day, which means that the computer system of the bank was not in working condition and the same was beyond the control of the OP. The other allegations leveled in the complaint have been denied.
EVIDENCE AND FINDINGS
5. The learned counsel for the parties produced their respective evidence.
6. The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that OPs number 1 and 2 installed one electric connection bearing account number 3002950874 at the premises of the complainant and OP number 2 issued a bill dated 1.6.2018 for Rs.8710/- and the complainant submitted a cheque number 000165 dated 11.6.2018 for Rs.8710/- drawn at HDFC Bank, Branch Malerkotla. The learned counsel for the complainant has further argued that at that time sufficient amount was lying in his account but the OP bank dishonored the cheque of the complainant on the ground of computer connectivity failure. The learned counsel for the complainant has further argued that there is no fault on the part of the complainant and has prayed that the complaint be allowed.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OPs number 1 and 2 has argued that admittedly the cheque in question for Rs.8710/- was given by the complainant but the same was dishonoured by the bank and due to dishonour of the cheque, the amount was not cleared. As such, the Ops number 1 and 2 have prayed that the complaint be dismissed with special costs.
8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 3 has argued that admittedly the cheque in question for Rs.8710/- was given by the complainant but the same was dishonoured due to connectivity failure.
9. To prove this case, the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit along with documents and has deposed as per the complaint. It is an admitted fact that the Ops number 1 and 2 issued a bill for Rs.8710/- to the complainant and to clear the bill the complainant issued cheque number 000165 dated 11.6.2018 for Rs.8710/- which was drawn on HDFC Bank, so it is clear that the bill amount was paid in time. HDFC Bank has filed its written version and they have stated that the cheque was dishonoured due to connectivity failure. It is further stated that the computer system of the bank was not in working condition and it was out of the control of the OPs. So it is clear that there is no fault of the complainant. The complainant has issued the cheque of HDFC Bank and due to connectivity failure the cheque was not honoured. The complainant along with affidavit has tendered copy of the cheque Ex.C-2, return memo Ex.C-3, account statement Ex.C-4, document of HDFC Bank Ex.C-5. Ex.C-6 is bill in question and Ex.C-7 is also copy of bill. Ex.C-8 is the copy of legal notice and Ex.C-9 to Ex.C-11 are the postal receipts. It is proved on record that the complainant has no fault and the cheque in question was dishonored due to connectivity failure. As the complainant was not at fault, so the OPs number 1 and 2 have wrongly withdrawn the cheque facility from the complainant without any reason.
10. In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OPs number 1 and 2 to restore the cheque facility to the complainant and further to refund Rs.600/- charged on account of late charges. We further direct the OPs to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5000/- as compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment and Rs.5000/- on account of litigation expenses. This order be complied with within 60 days from the receipt of copy of this order. A certified copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost as per rules. File be consigned to records.
Pronounced.
March 1, 2021.
(Vinod Kumar Gulati) (Jasjit Singh Bhinder)
Member President
