BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.493 of 2016

Date of Instt. 21.12.2016

Date of Decision: 23.04.2019

Raj Kumar Suri, aged 50 years S/o Sh. Om Parkash Suri r/o 275, Gupta Colony, Jalandhar City.

..........Complainant

Versus

Punjab & Sind Bank, New Subzi Mandi Branch, Jalandhar through its Branch Incharge.

….….. Opposite Party

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)

Smt. Jyotsna (Member)

Present: Sh. Anand Pandit, Adv Counsel for the Complainant.

Sh. APS Pathania, Adv Counsel for the OP.

Order

Karnail Singh (President)

1. The complainant Raj Kumar Suri filed the instant complaint, wherein alleged that he is a customer of the OP and is having bank account No.07021000020949 with the OP. The complainant is a regular customer of the OP since long.

2. That on 30.09.2016, the complainant visited the bank of the OP for withdrawing an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- and accordingly, the complainant filled up his cheque bearing No.513243 and presented the said cheque to the OP for withdrawal of money from his own account. On presentation of the aforesaid cheque, the same was cleared by the OP and was given token No.3 and accordingly, the complainant went to the cabin of the cashier with the token issued to him by the OP and on receiving the clear cheque, the cashier demanded the token from the complainant for disbursement of the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to the complainant and accordingly, the complainant handed over the said token to the cashier. On receiving the token from the complainant, the cashier counted the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- and when he was to handover the amount to the complainant, at that time, the Branch Incharge of the bank came there and snatched the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from the hands of the cashier and refused to give the said amount to the complainant and thereafter, started misbehaving with the complainant and flatly refused to give the withdrawn amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to the complainant despite having clear his cheque bearing No.513243 and when the complainant asked the branch incharge either to give him the cash against his cheque or to return his cheque to him with any objections, if any. On this, the branch incharge again started misbehaving with the complainant and openly proclaimed that neither he is going to give him the cash against his cheque nor he will return the cheque and the complainant is free to do whatever he wants to do and that he does not care for the complainant or anybody else. Thereafter, the branch incharge called the gunman of the bank and directed him to throw away the complainant from the bank branch. The guard of the bank branch on the instructions of the branch incharge pushed out the complainant from the bank branch.

3. That on account of the aforesaid, the complainant went to the Zonal Office of the OP and apprised them the whole incident, but the Zonal Office did not hear to the complaint of the complainant and accordingly, the complainant was constrained to address a communication/representation to the Finance Minister of India, but the said representation is still pending. After the above said incident, the complainant approached the OP many times for the return of his cheque, but the cheque of the complainant has not been returned to him so far which tantamount to unfair trade practices and due to such illegal acts of the OP, the complainant has suffered mental harassment and financial loss and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OP be directed to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant for causing mental tension and harassment and further OP be directed to pay legal expenses of Rs.15,000/-.

4. Notice of the complaint was given to the OP, who appeared through its counsel and filed written reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the instant complaint is not maintainable. The true facts are that the complainant obtained a car loan for an amount of Rs.5,50,000/- from the OP Bank and purchased Hyundai i20 car bearing registration No.PB08-BZ-0151 and the said loan was obtained by him in the month of February 2012 and his wife Smt. Seema Suri is the guarantor in the said loan transaction. They are jointly and severally liable to repay the loan amount. Thereafter, the complainant did not repay the loan amount and an amount of Rs.1,75,175.40/- was pending outstanding along with interest and expenses uptill September, 2016 and in this regard, the bank has initiated the recovery proceedings under Section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act 2002 against the movable property hypothecated with the bank. A notice dated 29.09.2016 was issued upon the complainant and his guarantor to repay the entire loan amount as his loan was declared as NPA on 31.03.2015. But the complainant has utilized the loan for his own purpose, using the vehicle hypothecated with the answering OP and intentionally the complainant is not repaying the loan amount, hence, he is categorized as a defaulter in the above said loan transaction in his loan account No.07021200020157. Hence, the complainant has filed a false case against the answering OP in order to drag the bank in an unnecessary litigation. It is further alleged that the saving bank account of the complainant bearing No.07021000020949 was marked as lien of the bank and an amount of Rs.92,143/- has been transferred towards the repayment of the loan amount as the charge of the bank by claiming the right of set off being both the accounts in the same name and customer ID. It is further alleged that on 30.09.2016, the balance in the saving bank account of the complainant was Rs.1,53,543.60/- and the complainant visited the branch for the payment of Rs.1,50,000/- after banking hours and when his cheque was under process, the complainant was made aware that he has to come on the next day for the clearance of the same and was also requested that he has to make the repayment of the loan amount as he is intentionally delaying the repayment of the bank and further alleged that the complainant has filed a false, frivolous & baseless complaint against the OP. Moreover, the complainant who had not come to collect his original cheque has also been returned with the original cheque and from this fact, it is clear that he was intimated that his cheque is being returned and further informed by letter dt. 31.10.2016. It is further alleged that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the present complaint because the matter involved in this complaint is complicated question of law which required to be adjudicated by getting detail evidence. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant is having saving bank account in the bank of the OP and it is also admitted that the complainant visited on 30.09.2016 for withdrawing of amount of Rs.1,50,000/-, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly prayed that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.

5. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant himself tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.CA along with document Ex.C-1 i.e. Complaint sent by the Complainant to the OP and closed the evidence.

6. Similarly, counsel for the OP tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OP-A alongwith some documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-13 and closed the evidence.

7. We have heard the argument from learned counsel for the respective parties and also gone through the case file very minutely.

8. The case set up by the complainant that he visited the branch of the OP bank on 30.09.2016 for withdrawing of Rs.1,50,000/- by presenting a cheque bearing No.513243, is not denied by the OP. The allegation of the complainant in regard to not disbursing the cheque amount to the complainant by the Branch Manager, has been denied by the OP simply on the ground that the complainant is a defaulter in a loan account, which was obtained by the complainant in the year 2012 for purchase of the car and further took a plea that the complainant came to the bank after bank hours on 30.09.2016 and as such, his cheque was not cleared and thereafter, he never turned up to get back the cheque and alleged that the instant complaint is false and frivolous.

9. We have sympathetically considered the allegation of the complainant as well as counter allegation of the OP and find that the act and conduct of the OP bank, on the relevant date i.e. 30.09.2016 is proved to be unethical against the procedural manner of the bank. If the complainant came to the bank on 30.09.2016 after the banking hours, then why the cheque of the complainant was entertained and retained by the OP Bank. After the banking hour, the bank is not required to deal with the customer and moreover, the outer gate of each bank after banking hours is usually closed and question does not arise to enter by the complainant in the bank, but this version of the OP seems to be false, frivolous and just to made a story to save its skin from the allegation of the complainant. It is established on the file that the complainant visited the bank and presented his cheque for encashment of Rs.1,50,000/- on the basis of cheque, but the said amount was not disbursed to the complainant by the OP Bank with malafide intention just to have a revenge against the complainant that he is not paying the defaulter loan amount and due to that reason, the bank must have misbehaved with the complainant and whereby caused mental harassment as well as physical.

10. Further, the act of the OP is also established that the same is negligent, because the OP itself admitted in the written reply that the cheque in original was sent to the complainant later on and its intimation was given to the complainant on 31.10.2016. Further, the OP manipulatedly create an other evidence against the complainant i.e. a notice dated 29.09.2016 Ex.OP-6. If the loan account of the complainant was declared as NPA on 31.03.2015, then why the OP bank waiting for such a long time till 29.09.2016 for sending a notice to the complainant to deposit the amount otherwise legal proceeding shall be initiated against the complainant. A legal notice Ex.OP-6 was prepared just to one day prior to the alleged incident of the complainant just to meet out the allegation of the complainant in regard to harassment on 30.09.2016. However, a notice can be prepared by the bank for any date, but it cannot be sent through registered post to the complainant on a previous date rather a postal receipt Ex.OP-7 shows that the said letter was sent to the complainant on 01.10.2016 i.e. after the alleged incident of 30.09.2016. We are not concerned here with the loan recovery of the OP from the complainant, because it is prerogative of the OP bank to recover its defaulter loan amount from the complainant according to rule and moreover as per preliminary objection, the OP has alleged that the bank has already initiated the recovery proceeding under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act 2002 against the movable property hypothecated with the bank. If the bank has already initiated recovery proceeding, then why the complainant was harassed for not paying the cheque amount and why his cheque amount was withheld by the OP under the pretext that the bank has lien over the saving account of the complainant, but we find that the bank has not lien over entire property of the complainant or its every saving account, the bank can recover the said defaulter loan amount from the mortgaged property firstly, if the amount is not satisfied from that mortgaged property, then bank can recover the remaining amount from other property or bank account of the complainant. So, this version of the OP is also a propounded one just to save the skin of its official. So, from the over all circumstances as discussed above, we find that the story propounded by the OP in response to the allegation of the complainant is having no solid substances, whereas the complainant has established on the file that the OP has harassed the complainant mentally, physically, without any reason and did not allow to reimburse his own amount from his account and as such, we are of the opinion that the act and conduct of the OP bank is highly improbable, which cannot be expected from the official as well as officer of the bank who are providing services to the General Public. So, these type of act should be curved by imposing heavy penalty.

11. As an upshot of our above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant succeeds and the same is partly accepted and OP is directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant for causing mental tension and harassment and further OP is directed to pay litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-. The entire compliance be made within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

12. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated Jyotsna Karnail Singh

23.04.2019 Member President