Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/196/2019

Dalbir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

RBL Bank - Opp.Party(s)

B.S. Bisht

03 Jan 2020

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

 

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/196/2019
Date of Institution	:	26/03/2019
Date of Decision	:	03/01/2020

 

Dalbir Singh S/o Late Sh. Gurdev Singh, R/o Village Kansal, Post Office Nada, Tehsil Kharar, District S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali.

…..Complainant

 

V E R S U S

 

1]      RBL Bank, Madhya Marg, Sector 9, Near Citco Petrol Pump, Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager.

 

2]      State Bank of India, SCF No. 19, Sector 23-C Branch, Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager.

…… Opposite Parties

QUORUM:	SURJEET KAUR	PRESIDING MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. B.S. Bisht, Counsel for Complainant.
	:	Opposite Party No.1 ex-parte.
	:	Sh. Vishal Gupta, Counsel for Opposite Party No.2.

 

PER Suresh Kumar Sardana, Member

1.         The facts, in brief, are, the Complainant had issued a Cheque No. 770740 dated 27.12.2018 amounting to Rs.354/- in favour of Opposite Party No.1 RBL Bank for payment of credit card bill. However, when the same was not honoured by the Bank, the Complainant approached Opposite Party No.1 and inquired about the same, but was not given satisfactory answer. It has been alleged that the Complainant was asked to pay the amount of Rs.354/- along with RET CHQ Handling Fee, Late Fee and Finance Charges to the tune of Rs.1654/-. When despite repeated requests, the Opposite Party No.1 did not stop to ask for the charges, the Complainant got served a legal notice dated 22.01.2019 upon Opposite Party No.1, but to no avail as Opposite Party No.1 raised a bill of Rs.3013/- instead of Rs.1614/-. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.         Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case. However, nobody appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.1 despite service, therefore, it was proceeded ex-parte on 28.05.2019.
3.         Opposite Party No.2 contested the complaint and filed its reply, inter alia, admitting the basic facts of the case. It has been pleaded that the Complainant issued a Cheque No. 28770740 dated 28.12.2012 amounting to Rs.354/- in favour of Opposite Party No.1 and had wrongly alleged in the entire complaint that the Cheque No.770740 is dated 27.12.2018 instead of actual date i.e. 28.12.2012. The validity of a Cheque is for a period of three months from the date of issue. When the Complainant issued the Cheque dated 28.12.2012 to Opposite Party No.1, the same was outdated and expired. Whenever a Cheque issued by a drawer is dishonoured due to any reason, then the Bank debited an amount of Rs.177/- towards penalty charges as per rules & regulations of the Bank.  The same Cheque was again deposited for clearance on 01.01.2019 by Opposite Party No.1 and was again dishonoured for which an amount of Rs.177/- was again debited from the account of the Complainant towards penalty charges.  The answering Opposite Party has no liability/responsibility in dishonouring of the Cheque. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, the Opposite Party No.2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4.          The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
5.         We have gone through the entire record and have also heard the arguments addressed by the Learned Counsel for the Parties.
6.         Admittedly, the Opposite Party No.2 (State Bank of India) deducted an amount of Rs.177/- twice on account of penalty charges as the Cheque in question was presented by Opposite Party No.1 (RBL Bank), despite the fact that the same was outdated and expired.
7.         Significantly, the Opposite Party No.1 did not appear to contest the claim of the complainant and preferred to proceed against ex-parte. This act of the Opposite Party No.1 draws an adverse inference against it. The non-appearance of the Opposite Party No.1 shows that it has nothing to say in its defence against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions of the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted.
8.         Needless to mention here that Opposite Party No.1 was supposed to verify the date of the Cheque before its presentation to Opposite Party No.2 and further, on its dishonour, for the first time, Opposite Party No.1 should not presented the same for second time and should have returned it to the Complainant, which Opposite Party No.1 has failed to do.
9.         On these precincts, the act of the Opposite Party No.1 for not returning the stale Cheque to the Complainant, especially when it was dishonoured by Opposite Party No.2 in the first instance, proves deficiency in service on its part, which certainly has caused immense, mental and physical harassment to the complainant.
10.         For the reasons recorded above, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Party No.1 alone, and the same is partly allowed qua Opposite Party No.1. The Opposite Party No.1 is directed:-

[a]    To refund Rs.177/- to the Complainant;

[b]    To pay Rs.1,000/- as compensation to the complainant for deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and harassment caused to him.

[c]    To also pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant as litigation expenses. 

                The complaint against Opposite Party No.2 fails and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. 

11.         The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Party No.1; thereafter, Opposite Party No.1 shall be liable for an interest @9% per annum on the amounts mentioned in sub-para [a] & [b] above from the date of institution of this complaint, till these are paid, apart from compliance of the directions as in sub-para [c].
12.         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

 

	Sd/-		Sd/-
03/01/2020	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]		[Surjeet Kaur]
	Member		Presiding Member