Haryana

Kurukshetra

CC/238/2019

Dr. G.S.Narula - Complainant(s)

Versus

SBI - Opp.Party(s)

Bikram Singh

01 Feb 2021

ORDER

 

                        BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL   COMMISSION KURUKSHETRA.

 

                                                                        Consumer Complaint No.238 of 2019.

Date of instt.:12.06.2019. 

                                                                        Date of Decision:1.02.2021

 

Dr.G.S.Narula son of Sh.Gurbaksh Singh Narula, resident of house No.23, Sector 7, Urban Estate, Kurukshetra.

                                                                …….Complainant.                                                  

                                                                                Versus

State Bank of India, Mini Sectt. Panchayat Bhawan, Kurukshetra through its Chief Manager.

                                                                ….…Opposite party.

 

  Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before       Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.    

                   Ms. Neelam, Member.       

                   Shri Issam Singh Sagwal, Member.                                                 

Present:     Shri  Bikram Singh Advocate for the complainant.             

Shri Rajan Chawla Advocate for Opposite Party.

ORDER

                                                                         

                    This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant G.S.Narula against State Bank of India, the opposite party.

2.             The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant  and his wife  Inderjit Narula are running a saving bank account bearing No.10135861009 in the OP-bank. The complainant is resident of house No.23, Sector -7, Urban Estate, Kurukshetra.  The complainant and his wife are retired persons of Haryana Government. The complainant was retired as Chief Medical Officer, at Karnal.  It is averred that the complainant has made a complaint to Chief Manager, SBI, Kurukshetra in respect of clearance of cheque of Rs.99,000/- from his account No. 10135861009 on 15.11.2018 and the amount was credited to some Raj Kumar Kushwaha.  The complainant has not issued any cheque and that was cleared on 15.11.2018. It is averred that by way of said complaint requested for necessary and   credit of the amount. It is further averred that the complainant also moved an application to Banking Ombudsman, Delhi which decides the complaints between the bank, consumers and third person.  Banking Ombudsman decided the complaint on 3.06.2019 and observed as under:

       

         (A)   “The bank did not adhere to the guidelines as stated above in the internal circular dated 29.06.2015.

 

        (B) The complainant too was at fault as he signed the cancelled cheque that was meant for the insurance agent. Since the bank as well as the complainant had made lapses, it was proposed that the loss may be half compensated by the bank (Rs.49500/-) and the rest may be borne by the complainant in the case. The case was closed under clause  11(3) of the B.O. Scheme, 2006”.

                In para no.4 of the order,  it was also observed “but  on seeing  the cheque in UV light the lines that were drawn for cancellation of the cheque were clearly visible”.          

                  In para no.2 of the order, it was also observed by the Banking Ombudsman that “ Bank  also confirmed that no  SMS logs were found”.

 

                It is averred that observations of the Banking Ombudsman clearly shows that lines were drawn on the cheque for cancellation and bank has not sent any SMS regarding honoring of the cheque to the complainant.                

                The complainant got completed his pass book on 17.11.2018 and found that the amount of Rs.99000/- has been credited in the name of Raj Kumar Kushwaha through a cheque bearing NO.283558.   The complainant also submitted an application to the S.P.Kurukshetra in this  and the  FIR No.1150 dated 4..12.2018 was lodged  in this regard and the police  is also investigating the matter. The complainant got medical insurance through Reliance Nipan Life Insurance and the agent of the  said insurance company fraudulently got insured his son Harneet Singh Narula instead of complainant  and forged the signatures of his son.  The complainant also moved an application in this regard to the Banking Lokpal, Chandigarh. Some  person representative of the  Lok Pal came to the complainant and assured the complainant to get the amount returned to the complainant. He represented himself as agent of the insurance company and he demanded a cancelled cheque. The complainant handed over a cancelled cheque bearing No. 283558 in respect of account No. 10135861009  and the said cheque  has been misused in favour of Raj Kumar Kushwaha.  Thus, the complainant has averred that such an act on the part of the OP-bank amounts to deficiency in services on its part and has prayed that the OP bank be directed to pay the claim of Rs.99,000/- plus  interest and compensation of Rs.one lakh for the mental harassment caused to him and the litigation expenses.

 

3.             Upon notice, OP   appeared and filed written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. It is submitted that the complainant has already filed a complaint before the Banking Ombudsman, New Delhi and on the same ground for the same cause of action. However, the Banking Ombudsman after giving appropriate opportunity to both the parties and after going through the record on a technical ground, the Ombudsman decided the complaint of the complainant and make the negligence of both the parties. It is pertinent to mention here that the Banking Ombudsman directed to OP/respondent bank to pay half of the cheque amount i.e. Rs.49500/- to the complainant due to the reason that no SMS alert was sent  on the mobile number of the complainant. The OP-respondent bank has complied the order of the  banking Ombudsman and the amount of Rs.49,500/-  was credited to the Saving Bank account No. 10135861009 of the complainant on 24.05.2019 and the same was duly accepted by the complainant.  No appeal or further complaint was filed to the Higher Authorities against the order of the Banking Ombudsman, make it clear that the complainant was duly satisfied with the order of the Baning Ombudsman.  It is settled law that complainant cannot avail two remedies for one cause of action after passing the appropriate order by the competent authority/court/tribunal.  All other allegations made in the complaint have been denied specifically and preliminary objections regarding mis-joinder and non-joinder of the parties, locus standi,  and maintainability have been raised and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4.             The complainant in support of his case has filed his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-8 and closed his evidence.

 

5.             On the other hand, OP in support of its case has filed affidavit Ex.RW1/A and closed  its evidence.

 

6.             We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material available on record.

 

7.             The learned counsel for the complainant while reiterating the averments made in the complaint has argued that  the complainant  and his wife  Inderjit Narula are running a saving bank account bearing No.10135861009 in the OP-bank.  It is argued that  the complainant has made a complaint to Chief Manager, SBI, Kurukshetra in respect of clearance of cheque of Rs.99,000/- from his account No. 10135861009 on 15.11.2018 and the amount was credited to some Raj Kumar Kushwaha.  The complainant has not issued any cheque and that was cleared on 15.11.2018. The complainant also moved an application to Banking Ombudsman, Delhi which decides the complaints between the bank, consumers and third person.  Banking Ombudsman decided the complaint on 3.06.2019 and observed the  complainant too was at fault as he signed the cancelled cheque that was meant for the insurance agent. Since the bank as well as the complainant had made lapses, it was proposed that the loss may be half compensated by the bank (Rs.49500/-) and the rest may be borne by the complainant in the case. The case was closed under clause  11(3) of the B.O. Scheme, 2006”. It is argued that complainant got completed his pass book on 17.11.2018 and found that the amount of Rs.99000/- has been credited din the name of Raj Kumar Kushwaha through a cheque bearing NO.283558.   The learned counsel for the complainant also argued that  an application to the S.P.Kurukshetra in this  and the  FIR No.1150 dated 4..12.2018 was lodged  in this regard and the police  is also investigating the matter. The complainant got medical insurance through Reliance Nipan Life Insurance and the agent of the  said insurance company fraudulently got insured his son Harneet Singh Narula instead of complainant  and forged the signatures of his son.  The complainant also moved an application in this regard to the Banking Lokpal, Chandigarh. Some  person representative of the  Lok Pal came to the complainant and assured the complainant to get the amount returned to the complainant. He represented himself as agent of the insurance company and he demanded a cancelled cheque. The complainant handed over a cancelled cheque bearing No. 283558 in respect of account No. 10135861009 and the said cheque  has been misused in favour of Raj Kumar Kushwaha.  It is also argued that a cancelled cheque cannot be encashed even if it is signed by the account holder.  Thus, the complainant has argued that such an act on the part of the OP-bank amounts to deficiency in services on its part and has prayed that the OP bank be directed to pay the claim of Rs.99,000/- plus  interest and compensation for the mental harassment caused to him and the litigation expenses. At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the complainant has also placed on record photo copy of the cancelled cheque mark “A”. The learned counsel for the complainant has  also placed reliance on the law laid down in case . D.A.V. School Vs. Senior Manager, Indian Bank Midnapur Branch and others  R.C.R. (1) S.C.594

 

8.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs has argued that the complainant had filed complaint before the Ombudsman  and award had been passed by the Ombudsman.  OP-respondent bank has complied  with the award  of the banking Ombudsman and the amount of Rs.49,500/-  was credited to the Saving Bank account No. 10135861009 of the complainant on 24.05.2019 and the same was duly accepted by the complainant.  As no appeal was filed to the Higher Authorities against the order of the Banking Ombudsman, make it clear that the complainant was duly satisfied with the order of the Banking Ombudsman, therefore, the complainant is  not entitled to any relief. Learned counsel for the OP has placed reliance on the law laid down in case Lalitkumar Dangi Vs. Kalpana P.Sanghavi and another,  revision petition  decided by the Hon’ble National Commission on 8.05.2018

 

9.             In this case, amount of Rs.49,500/- stands credited in the Saving Bank account No. 10135861009 of the complainant on 24.05.2019. The complainant has claimed the remaining amount of Rs.49,500/- alongwith interest. The  learned counsel for the OP has relied upon the law laid down in case Lalitkumar Dangi Vs. Kalpana P.Sanghavi and another,  revision petition  decided by the Hon’ble National Commission on 8.05.2018 and argued that this a legal point that can be raised at any stage again. Though Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provides  for alternative remedy but this does not mean that a consumer can pursue two remedies side by side or one after another. But we are not agree with the argument of the learned counsel for the OPs. Relying upon the law laid down in case  D.A.V. School Vs. Senior Manager, Indian Bank Midnapur Branch and others  R.C.R. (1) S.C.594   we are of the view that if no appeal is filed against the order of the Banking Ombudsman, a person can file a complaint before the District Forum   and as such non filing of the complaint against the order of Banking Ombudsman does not bar the complainant from filing the complaint before this Commission. Therefore, we hold that the complainant is entitled to remaining amount of Rs.49500/- alongwith 9% interest from  17.11.2018, the day when the amount of Rs.99000/- was debited from the account of the complainant because the bank encashed the cancelled cheque of the complainant. A cancelled cheque cannot be encashed. This is a grave deficiency in services on the part of the OP-bank. Besides, this the complainant shall also be entitled for the mental harassment and agony caused to him. The citation relied upon by the learned counsel for the OP is not applicable to the facts of the present case.

 

10.            In view of our above discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the OP to make the payment of Rs.49,500/- to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum  from 17.11.2018 till its realization. The complainant shall also be entitled for a sum of Rs.5000/- for the mental harassment and agony caused to him. The OP is   further directed to make the compliance of this order within a  period of 45 days from the date of from the date of preparation of certified copy of this order, failing which, the complainant will be at liberty to initiate proceedings under Section 25/27 of the Act against the OP. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record-room, after due compliance.

 

Announced in open Forum:

Dt.:01.02.2021.                                                                                                                                                   (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                             President.

 

 

(Issam Singh Sagwal),         (Neelam)       

 Member                              Member.