Delhi

East Delhi

CC/313/2018

NOMESH DUTT - Complainant(s)

Versus

PUNJAB & SIND BANK - Opp.Party(s)

03 Oct 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO. 313/18

 

Shri Nomesh Dutt

S/o Shri Keshav Dutt

R/o D/716-A, Rajiv Gali No. 7

Ashok Nagar, Delhi – 110 093                                    ….Complainant

Vs.    

1. Punjab & Sind Bank

Branch Mayur Vihar Phase-I

Delhi – 110 091

Through its Manager

 

2. Punjab & Sind Bank

B-136, Preet Vihar

Delhi – 110 092

Through its Manager                                                               …Opponents

 

Date of Institution: 27.09.2018

Date of Order: 03.10.2018

 

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By: Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

 

 

ORDER

          This complaint has been filed by Shri Nomesh Dutt against              Punjab & Sind Bank (OP) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with allegations of deficiency in service. 

2.       The facts in brief are that the complainant Shri Nomesh Dutt have stated that on 11.12.2017, a crossed self cheque bearing no. 08771000008767 amounting to Rs. 40,000/-, drawn on Punjab & Sind Bank, Mayur Vihar was lost.  He immediately tried to lodge the complaint with Punjab & Sind Bank (OP-1), but due to some technical problem in the mobile application of the OP, he could not lodge the same.  He forwarded the same message and informed the manager on telephone. 

          He was shocked to see the message from OP about the encashment of the said lost cheque.  He also sent mail dated 19.12.2017 which was replied by OP through its reply of dated 20.12.2017 stating that message of Stop Payment of cheque no. 3 dated 11.12.2017 was received at 1.30 p.m.  After checking the account of the complainant, it was revealed that the cheque in question was already passed at 12.11 p.m. so they could not stop the payment of said lost cheque.

          He wrote a letter of dated 20.12.2017 for taking legal action against the culprits, but no action has been taken.  He again wrote mail to the DU, Zonal Office on 26.12.2017 and wanted to know as to how an Account Payee Cheque was encashed from OP-2 by violating all the rules and regulations of banking.  He also made a complaint to the banking ombudsman vide complaint dated 08.02.2018 requesting for refund of payment of Rs. 40,000/- alongwith interest @ 2% p.a. from the date of encashment till its realization, but no action has been taken by banking ombudsman.

          Through letter of dated 15.05.2018, the zonal office of OP has replied to the RTI of the complainant stating that they were trying to recover the payment made, but till date neither the amount of cheque has been refunded nor any action has been taken against the concerned officials.  Thus, he has stated that Punjab & Sind Bank (OP) was negligent in performing his duties as well as deficient in providing service to the complainant and has prayed for refund amount of Rs. 40,000/- alongwith 2% interest from the date of encashment till its realization; Rs. 50,000/- compensation on account of loss, harassment, mental pain and agony and Rs. 11,000/- towards cost of litigation.

 

Heard on Admission

          We have heard Ld. Counsel for the complainant and have perused the material placed on record.  It is the case of the complainant that the bank, by making payment on the lost cheque, has been deficient in their service.  If the documents placed on record such as cheque in question is perused, it is noticed that the cheque bears the date of 09.12.2017 which is self paid.  Even if his stand is taken that the cheque was crossed one, it is fundamental that a self cheque cannot be crossed one. 

          Not only that, when complainant have lost the cheque and bank have made the payment acting on the same, the question of any deficiency on the part of bank does not arise.  Whether the cheque was a crossed one, who presented the cheque and to whom the payment was made, this requires trial.

          We are, therefore, of the opinion that the complaint of the complainant cannot be admitted and stands rejected. 

          File be consigned to Record Room.                         

 

 

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                              (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

       Member                                                                             Member    

            (SUKHDEV SINGH)

                   President