Haryana

Gurgaon

CC/290/2011

Hem Chander Yadav - Complainant(s)

Versus

SBI - Opp.Party(s)

17 May 2016

ORDER

                                    DISTRICT   CONSUMER   DISPUTES   REDRESSAL FORUM,GURGAON-122001

                                                                                                               Consumer Complaint No: 290 of 2011                                                                                                                           Date of Institution: 14.06.2011                                                                                                                                                       Date of Decision: 17.05.2016

Hem Chander Yadav R/o VPO Chakkarpur, Tehsil & District Gurgaon.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          ……Complainant.

                                                Versus

Manager, State Bank of India, Sushant Lok, Gurgaon.

 

Manager, State Bank of India, Mehrauli Road, Gurgaon.

 

..Opposite parties

                                                                                               

Complaint under Sections 12 & 14 of Consumer Protection Act,1986                                                                 

 

BEFORE:     SHRI SUBHASH GOYAL, PRESIDENT

SMT JYOTI SIWACH, MEMBER

                   SH.SURENDER SINGH BALYAN, MEMBER.

 

Present:        Shri Arun Sharma, Adv for the complainant.

                    Shri S.S.Raghav, Adv for the OPs.

                   

 

ORDER        SUBHASH GOYAL, PRESIDENT.

 

The case of the complainant, in brief, is that he is maintaining PF A/c No.10572805613 with OP-2. On 23.03.2011 he deposited cheque bearing No.526466 for a sum of Rs.70,000/- with OP-1 in his above mentioned PF Account but the said amount has not been credited in his PF Account by the OPs. He contacted the OP Bank official who told him that the amount could not be transferred only because of negligence on the part of the OP-1 as the OP-1 had lost the cheque deposited by the complainant or wrongly deposited the same with some other account. It is further alleged that instead of returning the same cheque of the complainant the OP-1 issued fresh bankers cheque bearing No.666336 for a sum of Rs.70,000/-. After receiving the said bankers cheque he again approached to his banker i.e. OP-2 for depositing the above said bankers cheque in his PF Account but they refused to deposit the same on the ground that the complainant cannot deposit more than Rs.70,000/- during a financial year. Thus, the above said act of the opposite parties tantamounts to deficiency in service on their part. The complainant prayed that the opposite parties be directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.50,000/-.

2                 The complainant filed his affidavit in support of his complaint and subscription copy Ann C-1, Statement of Account Ann C-2 Bankers Cheque dated 28.03.2011 for Rs.70,000/- Ann C-3 and legal notice Ann C-4.

3                 OPs in their written reply have alleged that the complainant could not invest more than Rs. 70,000/- in his PPF Account as per the law and he had already deposited Rs.500/- in cash  during the same financial year on 14.08.2010 as per Statement of Account (Ann OP-1/A) but again he issued cheque for Rs.70,000/- instead of R.69500/- and as such he wanted to invest Rs.70,500/- during the same financial year 2010-11 and as the said cheque for Rs.70,000/- had already been cleared and became part of record of OPs. OP-1 issued banker cheque and as there was no contact number of the complainant with OP-1 the said banker cheque was delivered to him when he visited the Bank. Thus, the complainant himself was negligent and he could not take wrongful gains out of his wrong acts more particularly when he has been maintaining the said account since long. Thus, the complaint is liable to be dismissed with heavy costs.

4                 OPs in support of their case have placed on file PF account statement OP-/A and Bankers Cheque Application Form Ex.OP/B.

5                 We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record available on file.

6                 Therefore, from the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence on the file and the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties, it emerges that the complainant has filed the present complaint against the OPs alleging deficiency in service on their part on the ground that he is maintaining PF Account in the branch of OP-1 at Mehrauli Road, Gurgaon i.e. OP-2 and on 23.03.2011 he deposited cheque for a sum  of Rs.70,000/- with OP-1 for depositing the same in his PF Account and the same cheque was dropped by him in the drop box. On 05.04.2011 the complainant obtained statement of account of PF Account and came to know that the said cheque has not been credited by OP-1 in the PF account of the complainant and when he contacted OP-1 then he came to know that the said cheque has not been transferred and the same had been lost and thereafter OP-1 issued fresh bankers cheque for a sum of Rs.70,000/- in order to hide its negligence. The complainant approached OP-2 who was maintaining the PF account of the complainant but the OP-2 refused to entertain the said cheque as more than Rs.70,000/- was not liable to be deposited in a financial year. The complainant has alleged deficiency in service on the part of the OPs as he was deprived off earning interest in the PF account.

7                 However, as per the contention of OP the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and thus, the complaint was liable to be dismissed with special costs. As per the argument of OP the complainant had already deposited a sum of Rs.500/- in cash on 14.08.2010 during the said financial year and again issued cheque of Rs.70,000/- and thus, the complainant wanted to invest Rs.70,500/- during the same financial year 2010-11 and since the cheque was cleared and thus,  it became the matter of record and thereafter OP-1 issued bankers cheque which was delivered to the complainant when he visited the bank. The complainant could not be informed in time for want of address. The OPs have denied the allegations of lost of cheque  and has contended that said cheque was duly cleared in the PF account  but a sum of Rs.500/- had already been deposited and the amount of Rs.70,000/- could not have been deposited in the said Account as the limit was Rs.70,000/- as per Income Tax Department. The OPs have denied any negligence on their part and has contended that the complainant himself was negligent.

8                 Therefore, after going through the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence placed on file it is evident that complainant had deposited a sum of Rs.500/- in his PF account number with OP-2 and thereafter he issued cheque of Rs.70,000/- and dropped the same in the drop box of OP-1 for depositing the same in the PF account of the complainant maintained by OP-2. However, since the amount was more than Rs.70,000/- as prescribed by Income Tax Department and thus, the said amount was not deposited rather the same was withheld and OP-1 could not contact the complainant as there was no contact number  as the account of the complainant was with OP-2 and as and when the complainant contacted OP-1 then OP-1 handed over bankers cheque and also reversed entry in the bank account. Therefore, from the contents of complaint it emerges that the complaint has been filed on false and baseless allegations by twisting true facts and alleging allegation of loss of cheque despite the fact that the said cheque was duly encashed and the encashed amount was kept on hold and thereafter the same was converted into the bankers cheque. Therefore, we are inclined to hold that there was no deficiency in service on the part of OPs rather the complainant himself was negligent. Thus, the complaint has no merit and the same is hereby dismissed.  The parties be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the records after due compliance.

 

Announced                                                                                                          (Subhash Goyal)

17.05.2016                                                                                                               President,

                                                                                                                       District Consumer Disputes

                                                                                                                        Redressal Forum, Gurgaon

 

(Jyoti Siwach)        (Surender Singh Balyan)

Member                 Member