Punjab

Sangrur

CC/383/2018

Jamil Khan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Reserve Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Sandeep Kumar Goyal

05 Apr 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .

 

                                                                        Complaint No. 383

 Instituted on:   18.09.2018

                                                                         Decided on:     05.04.2021

 

Jamil Khan son of Sh. Babu Khan, resident of Village Chaunda, Tehsil Malerkotla, Distt. Sangrur.

                                                          …. Complainant    

                                                 Versus

1.     Reserve Bank of India, Central Vista, Sector 17, Chandigarh through its Regional Director (Chandigarh Circle) 160017. (Complaint not admitted against OP No.1.)

2.     State Bank of India, Corporate Centre, State Bank Bhawan, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai through its Chairman 400021.

3.     State Bank of India, Region III, Regional Business Office, Near Kali Mata Mandir, Mall Road, Patiala through its  Regional Manager.

4.     State Bank of India, Near Gurudwara Sahib, Nabha Road, Amargarh, Tehsil Malerkotla, District Sangrur through its Manager

             ….Opposite parties. 

For the complainant:                   :Shri Sandeep Goyal,Adv.        

For the OPs 2 to 4               :Shri  Amit Goyal, Adv.

 

Quorum:   Shri Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President

                Shri V.K.Gulati, Member   

 

ORDER:  

Shri Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President

1.             Shri Jamil Khan, complainant has filed this complaint against the Ops pleading that the complainant had an account bearing number 550571160663 with the  State Bank of India at Near Gurudwara Branch, Amargarh. Further case of the complainant is that on 7.6.2018 the complainant presented a cheque bearing number 0000057 for Rs.10,50,000/- dated 10.3.2018 in the branch of OP number 4 and at that time it was a valid cheque and presented within the period of three months.   Further case of the complainant is that thereafter the complainant visited to OP number 4 to enquire about the cheque who intimated that it will take 2-3 das and the complainant again visited OP number 4 but the OP number 4 again assured that the cheque will credit in his account.  Further on 26.6.2017 when the complainant visited Op Number 4 to know the status of the cheque,  it was informed that the presented cheque was not a valid cheque.  Further case of the complainant is that the cheque presented by the complainant was within time as prescribed by law. That as  said cheque was dishonoured earlier, the person who had drawn the cheque had consented and assured the complainant to get his cheque cleared this time, but the employees of the OP number 3 did not send the cheque for clearing to the bank of the drawer i.e. HDFC Bank for almost 15 days after the presentation of the cheque, which caused a great loss to the complainant.  As such, due to negligence of the OP number 4, the complainant suffered a major loss of the cheque amount as well as caused mental tension and harassment. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.10,50,000/-  and further to pay compensation and litigation expenses.

2.             In reply filed by the OPs number 2 to 4, the allegations of the complaint have been denied. It is further averred that the cheque in question was not at all presented to the bank by the complainant on 7.6.2018.  In fact when the customer came to the branch of the bank ie. OP number 4 on 7.6.2018 along with cheque in question he was apprised about the cheque is going to stale on 9.6.2018. On 9.6.2018 being second Saturday was bank holiday and it was to be sent for collection to Nabha by registered post which could have entailed 15 days for presentation and the complainant was advised to present the cheque himself in any local SBI Branch, as such  the cheque in question was taken back by the customer himself on the same day, however the cheque in question was presented twice earlier on 27.3.2018 and 7.5.2018 which was returned unpaid which is a matter of record.  It is stated further that for outstation cheque collection period is 14 days, so the contention of getting the cheque cleared in 2 days is totally false and baseless and the same is not tenable.   The other allegations leveled in the complaint have been denied.

3.             The learned counsel for the parties produced their respective evidence.

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant had an account bearing number 550571160663 with the  State Bank of India at Near Gurudwara Branch, Amargarh and on 7.6.2018 the complainant presented a cheque bearing number 0000057 for Rs.10,50,000/- dated 10.3.2018 in the branch of OP number 4 and at that time it was a valid cheque and presented within the period of three months.   The learned counsel for the complainant has further argued that thereafter the complainant visited to OP number 4 to enquire about the cheque who intimated that it will take 2-3 days and the complainant again visited OP number 4 but the OP number 4 again assured that the cheque will credit in his account.  The learned counsel for the complainant has further argued that  on 26.6.2017 when the complainant visited Op Number 4 to know the status of the cheque,  it was informed that the presented cheque was not a valid cheque.  Further the learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the cheque presented by the complainant was within time as prescribed by law, but the case of the complainant is that the same was never credited in the account of the complainant and has thus stated that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and has prayed that the complaint be allowed.

5.             On the other hand, the learned counsel for OPs  has argued that the cheque in question was not at all presented to the bank by the complainant on 7.6.2018.  In fact when the customer came to the branch of the bank i.e. OP number 4 on 7.6.2018 along with cheque in question he was apprised about the cheque is going to stale on 9.6.2018. The learned counsel for the OPs has further argued that on 9.6.2018 being second Saturday was bank holiday and it was to be sent for collection to Nabha by registered post which could have entailed 15 days for presentation and the complainant was advised to present the cheque himself in any local SBI Branch, as such  the cheque in question was taken back by the customer himself on the same day, however the cheque in question was presented twice earlier on 27.3.2018 and 7.5.2018 which was returned unpaid which is a matter of record. The learned counsel for the OPs has further argued that the cheque in question was not presented in time and as such it is stated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Thus, the OPs have prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

6.             To prove this case, the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit and has deposed as per the complaint, Ex.C-2 is the Photostat copy of the cheque for Rs.10,50,000/- dated 10.3.2018, Ex.C-3 is the receipt dated 7.6.2018 for Rs.10,50,000/-, Ex.C-4 is legal notice and Ex.C-5 to Ex.C-8 are the postal receipts and Ex.C-9 reply to legal notice.

7.             The learned counsel for the OPs has produced Ex.OP2to4/1 affidavit of Shri Parveen, Branch Manager and he has stated that in fact when the customer came to the branch of the bank i.e. OP number 4 on 7.6.2018 then he was apprised about the cheque turning stale on 9.6.2018. On 9.6.2018 being second Saturday holiday and as it was to be sent for collection to Nabha by registered post which would have entailed 15 days for presentation and the complainant was advised to present the cheque himself in any local SBI Branch, as such, the cheque in question was taken back by the customer himself on the same date i.e. on 7.6.2018. However, the cheque in question was presented twice earlier on 27.3.2018 and 7.5.2018 also which was returned unpaid which is a matter of record.  The cheque in question was not retained by the employee of the bank sitting on counter of the bank, however, the voucher might have been filled in by Aman as a matter of rendering service in routine.  There is no negligence on the part of the bank employee.   The learned counsel for the OPs has further argued that there is no deficiency in service as the cheque in question was presented twice on 27.3.2018 and 7.5.2018 through post to SBI Branch Nabha for collection.  It is further argued that normal procedure collection period for outstation cheque is 14 days, so the contention of getting the cheque cleared in two days is totally false and baseless. The complainant did not visit the branch of OP number 4 time and again and no assurance was given to the complainant by any employee of the bank.  The learned counsel for the OPs has further argued that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.  The learned counsel for the OPs has cited Narender Ahuja versus Axis Bank Ltd. I (2019) CPJ 476(NC) wherein it has been held Banking and financial Institution services – Cheque –Returned with remarks to the effect that cheque was stale/out dated. Alleged deficiency in service. State Commission dismissed complaint. Hence appeal. Since cheque in question was deposited with respondent Axis Bank late in evening on 10.4.2018 it shall be deemed to have been deposited with said bank on 11.4.2018 during normal banking hours. In regular course of its business, respondent bank was required to send this cheque to clearing house on next working day i.e. 12.4.2018. Since validity of cheque expired on 11.4.2018, respondent bank was fully justified in not sending it to clearing house for presenting same to bank on which it was drawn. Deficiency not proved.

8.             As per the complaint  one cheque bearing number 000057 of Rs.10,50,000/- dated 10.3.2018 was submitted to the bank on 7.6.2018 and in para number 5 of the complaint it is mentioned that on 26.6.2017 when the complainant visited to the opposite party number 4 to know the status of his cheque presented by him it was stated that it was not a valid cheque and moreover it was also earlier dishonoured twice.  The said cheque was dishonoured earlier, the person who had drawn the cheque had consented and assured the complainant to get his cheque clear this time.  In para number 8 of the complaint, it is mentioned that it is negligence of OP number 4 and the OP bank employees that the OP had not sent the said cheque for clearing to the bank of the drawee i.e. HDFC Bank Ltd. and also for almost 15 days after the presentation of the cheque the OP had not returned the cheque to the complainant. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has stated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

9.             There are two documents on the file besides Ex.C-2 dated 7.6.2018 in which one cheque was deposited by the complainant for Rs.10,50,000/- and on it receipt  number HDFC-000057  has been mentioned. Ex.C-3 is the copy of the cheque dated 7.6.2018 for Rs.10,50,000/- which was presented on 7.6.2018, so it is clear that the cheque in question was presented on 7.6.2018. The written statement filed by the State Bank of India is on the file but they have not filed any written statement to para number 1 to 6 and they have filed written statement to para number 7 and 8. In para number 8 it is mentioned that contents of para number 8 of the complaint are totally false and baseless as no cheque was ever presented on 7.6.2018 by the bank and hence the story has been concocted as the customer has failed to file criminal case against the person who had issued the cheque in question.  This contention is wrong as the cheque was presented on 7.6.2018 and it is clear that the bank has filed written statement without looking the documents on the file produced by the complainant.  There is no written statement to para number 5 of the complaint.  As in para number 5 it is mentioned in the reply of complaint that the complainant visited the OP number 4 on 26.6.2017 is absolutely wrong and is denied.

10.           So it is clear that there is deficiency in service on the part of OP number 4 as it is clear from the documents on the file Ex.C-2 receipt dated 7.6.2018 and the cheque copy Ex.C-3. Banks are advised to be vigilant to the customers when the cheque is presented.

11.           In view of our above discussion, we partly allow the complaint and direct OP number 4 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.25,000/- in lieu of consolidated amount of compensation and litigation expenses.  This order be complied with by the opposite parties within 60 days from the date of receipt of certified 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.

                        April 5, 2021.

 

(Vinod Kumar Gulati)  (Jasjit Singh Bhinder) 

           Member                 President