BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no.273 of 2018
Date of Institution : 31.10.2018
Date of Decision : 16.10.2019.
Manju Rani wife of Nihal Singh son of Sh. Karta Ram, resident of village Nuhianwali, Tehsil Kalanwali, District Sirsa.
….Complainant.
Versus
1. Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank Branch Odhan, District Sirsa through its Manager.
2. Syndicate Bank, Kings way GTB Nagar, Delhi through its Manager.
..…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI R.L. AHUJA……………..PRESIDENT
SH. ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL .……MEMBER.
Present: Sh. N.S. Yadav, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. M.S. Sethi, Advocate for opposite party no.1.
Opposite party no.2 exparte.
ORDER
Case of complainant, in brief, is that complainant is an account holder in Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank branch Odhan having account no.81008700002239. That complainant issued a cheque to firm of Delhi namely Digivention Tech Pvt. Ltd. of Rs.9000/- INR dated 6.3.2018 bearing no.070405 and same was presented by the holder to the branch of op no.2, which was returned back to drawer with returned memo of insufficient amount in his account, whereas on the same day his account was having sufficient funds in his account. The said cheque was returned to the complainant by the drawer alongwith returned memo. It is further averred that when complainant obtained the statement of her account, she was shocked to see that an amount of Rs.9000/- was deducted from her account by way of same cheque which was returned to her by the drawer as unpaid and is still in her possession. That on 20.7.2018, complainant sent a notice to op n o.1 through her counsel about the said instance and op no.1 replied the notice through its counsel that there was no fault of op no.1 as the amount was transferred to op no.2 and no such memo of insufficient fund was delivered by op no.1 to op no.2. Then on 24.8.2018, complainant issued a notice to op no.2 about the same instance which was delivered on 1.9.2018 but op no.2 did not give any reply. That original cheque is in possession of complainant and amount has already been transferred from op no.1 to op no.2 and none of them is ready to take their responsibility for deficiency in services caused to complainant as when the cheque is already in hand it is great surprise that amount has been transferred without cheque. The ops no.1 and 2 are fully responsible for inconvenience and harassment caused to the complainant and they refused to take responsibility about illegal transfer of fund. Hence, this complaint seeking direction to the complainant to compensate her and to deposit Rs.9000/- alongwith compensation amount.
2. On notice, opposite party no.1 appeared and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that cheque no.077405 dated 6.3.2018 for the amount of Rs.9000/- was presented for payment at Syndicate Bank at its some branch at Delhi and an amount of Rs.9000/- has been credited to Syndicate Bank out of the account of the complainant. In this way, there is negligence of Syndicate Bank for dishonoring the cheque of the complainant. There is no negligence or fault or any lapse on the part of answering op in any manner. It is further submitted that account of complainant legally debited for Rs.9000/-, the amount has been credited to the Syndicate Bank where the above said cheque was present ed. The notice got issued by complainant to answering op bank was not based on true facts. But detailed reply to the notice was given by the Bank through counsel vide reply dated 4.8.2018. In this reply, the position was made clear but despite that complainant has filed this false and frivolous complaint. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
3. Notice sent to op no.2 through registered cover not received back despite passing of more than 30 days and none appeared on behalf of op no.2 and as such op no.2 was proceeded against exparte.
4. The complainant as well as op no.1 tendered their evidence.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
6. The complainant in order to prove her complaint has furnished her affidavit Ex.CW1/A and copy of cheque Ex.C1, copy of return report Ex.C2, copy of legal notice Ex.C3, postal receipt Ex.C4, copy of legal notice Ex.C5, postal receipt Ex.C6, acknowledgment Ex.C7, copy of statement of account Ex.C8 and reply to legal notice Ex.C9. On the other hand, op no.1 has furnished affidavit of Sh. Ramesh Kumar Gumbar, Manager and Principal Officer as Ex.RW1/A, copies of account ledger inquiry Ex.R1 to Ex.R3, copy of cheque Ex.R4 and copy of account ledger inquiry as Ex.R5.
7. It is proved case of complainant that complainant had issued a cheque to firm of Delhi namely Digivention Tech Pvt. Ltd. bearing No.070405 worth Rs.9000/- dated 6.3.2018 which was presented by the holder of the cheque to the branch of op no.2 which was returned back to the drawer with cheque return memo of insufficient funds in the account of complainant. As per allegations of complainant, there were sufficient funds on that date in the account of complainant. This fact also finds corroboration from the copy of statement of account Ex.C8. The complainant has placed on record copy of cheque and copy of return memo and has also produced original cheque and memo before Forum for inspection during the course of arguments in the presence of learned counsel for op no.1 which proves the fact that the cheque with memo was returned by the holder of the cheque to the complainant.
8. Though, op no.1 has taken the plea that cheque of Rs.9000/- was presented for payment at Syndicate Bank at its own branch at Delhi and an amount of Rs.9000/- was debited out of the account of complainant, but however, during the course of arguments, learned counsel for op no.1 has conceded that amount may not be handed over to the holder of the cheque and may be lying with op no.2. It is further proved fact on record that complainant has hired services of op no.1 to transfer this amount to holder of the cheque through op no.2 before whom cheque was presented, but however, it is proved on record neither amount of Rs.9000/- was paid to the holder of cheque nor same has been returned to the complainant due to reason best known to the ops. The op no.1 has not placed on record any document from which it could be presumed that they ever made any effort to get refund of this amount from op no.2. Since op no.2 did not put its appearance, so the evidence led by complainant goes as unchallenged and unrebutted against op no.2. From the evidence of complainant, it is proved that complainant is entitled for refund of the amount of Rs.9000/- and also for compensation for pain and suffering which he has suffered due to parting with this amount of Rs.9000/- and is also entitled to interest from the date of transfer of amount till actual payment.
9. In view of our above discussion, we allow this complaint and direct the opposite parties to make refund of Rs.9000/- to the complainant alongwith interest as per saving account rate of interest within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The ops are further directed to pay Rs.5000/- as composite compensation for harassment and litigation expenses to the complainant. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room after due compliance
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated: 16.10.2019 Member. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
