Haryana

Kurukshetra

08/2017

Sanyogita Devi - Complainant(s)

Versus

SBI - Opp.Party(s)

S.K.Goel

09 Jan 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

Complaint Case no.8/17.

Date of instt: 11.1.17. 

                                                                          Date of Decision:09.01.2019.

Sanyogita Devi wife of Ashok Kumar Bansal, resident of House No.1183, Sector-13, Kurukshetra.

                                        ……..Complainant.

                        Vs.

1. State Bank of India, Mini Sectt. Branch Kurukshetra, through its Senior Branch Manager.
2. The Senior Branch Manager, S.B.I. Branch, Mall Road, Karnal. 

 

..………Opposite parties.

 

Complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.                   

 

 

Before:      Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.

                Ms. Neelam, Member.

                Sh. Sunil Mohan Trikha, Member.

       

Present:     Sh. S.K. Goel, Adv. for complainant.

 Sh. Rajan Chawla, Adv. for OP No.1.

 Op No.2 ex parte.

 

ORDER

 

                   This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Sanyogita Devi against State Bank of India and another, the opposite parties.

2.            Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant is having saving-cum-salary account in the bank of Ops bearing No.30278470385. The complainant completed all the formalities which are required to opening an account in the branch of Ops i.e. KYC etc. and nothing is left in this regard on the part of complainant. Even, the Ops never issued a notice regarding the non fulfillment of any formalities regarding the account of complainant and documents i.e. K.Y.C. etc. have been left to be submitted by the complainant in the bank of Ops. On 12.9.2016 the complainant had issued a cheque No.385751 in favour of Ashok Kumar and when the said Ashok Kumar presented the said cheque in his bank, then the Ops dishonoured the cheque on the basis of non KYC which is not valid ground as all the documents i.e. KYC was already submitted in the bank. As per agreement between the parties, the Ops are bound to honour all the cheques issued by her when there are sufficient funds and by dishonoring the cheques of the complainant is amounts to deficiency in service on the part of Ops.  Hence, in such like circumstances, the present complaint was moved by the complainant with the prayer to direct the Ops to disclose the name of the persons who are responsible for dishonor the cheque and to credit a sum of Rs.173/- in the account of complainant deducted by the OPs on account of dishonor of cheque and to pay Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment.

3.             OP No.1 appeared and contested the complaint by way of filing written statement taking preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts as such, she is not entitled for any relief; that the complainant has not complied with the terms and conditions of the saving bank account as per RBI Bank and Govt. guidelines to provide the KYC norms. Despite repeated requests and publications by the reserve bank of India and the Bank the complainant neither complied the KYC norms nor provided the identify to the residential proof to up date the account. As per CBS, the computer of the bank cannot allow to operate the account without completing KYV norms. However, the complainant provided the ID and residential proof to the OP Bank to complete the KYC norms and the same was immediately uploaded on 19.9.2016 on the system and account of the complainant was became operative from the same day. The deduction of Rs.173/- from the account of complainant is system generated and legal.  Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Op and as such, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed. On merits, the contents of the complaint were denied to be wrong. Preliminary objections were reiterated. Prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made.  

4.             OP No.2 has failed to come present and as such, he was proceeded ex parte vide order dated 26.10.2016.    

5.            The complainant tendered into evidence affidavit, Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

6.           On the other hand, the Op No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit, Ex.RW1/A and document Ex.R1 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

7.             We have heard learned counsel parties and have gone through the record carefully.

8.             Learned counsel for the complainant contended that the complainant has saving-cum-salary account in the bank of Ops.  The complainant has completed all the formalities which were required at the time of opening of account in the branch of Ops.  He further contended that on 12.09.2016 the complainant has issued a cheque No.385751 in favour of Ashok Kumar.  When Ashok Kumar presented the above-said cheque issued by the complainant in her bank, then the Ops dishonoured the cheque of complainant on the basis of non-availability of KYC which is not a valid ground as all the documents i.e. KYC etc. were already been submitted by the complainant in the bank.  The Ops have not given any intimation regarding non-availability of KYC and after opening of account, the complainant has not given any KYC documents to the Ops.  The Ops intentionally dishonoured the cheque and recovered the amount of Rs.173/- from her account due to dishonor of cheque.  He further contended that due to this, the repudiation of complainant has been spoiled in the society.  He further contended that the cheque was dishonoured on 12.09.2016 and KYC was uploaded on 19.02.2016.  This was done by the Ops only to defame the repudiation of complainant because during this period, she has not given any document to the Ops.  He further contended that at the time of dishonor of cheque, there was sufficient amount in the account of complainant.  The counsel of complainant has drawn our attention towards the document Ex.C6, which is a printed document given by the bank in case of dishonour of cheque but the reason given at point No.20 is that “Refer to drawer a/c is non KYC” but the same was written in handwritten which was not a legal reason for dishonour of cheque.  So, this is a great deficiency and unfair trade practice on the part of Ops, so, the complainant has prayed for acceptance of complaint and compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- may kindly be awarded to the complainant.  The counsel of complainant placed reliance upon the case law cited in 2018(10 RCR (Civil) page 63 titled as Tara Singh Gill Vs. Punjab and Sind Bank etc. (Punjab State Commission); 2007(4) CCC page 378 titled as Ram Avtar Vs. Sushma Kumari & another (P&H) and 2009(3) CCC page 848 titled as Musauddin Ahmed Vs. State of Assam (SC).

9.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the Op no.1 contended that the cheque was dishonoured by Op No.2, who was proceeded against exparte by this Forum vide order dt. 26.10.2016.  He further contended that the Op No.1 has no concern with the document Ex.C6.  He further contended that at the time of dishonour of cheque, there was sufficient amount in the account but the cheque was dishonoured due to non-availability of KYC documents.

10.            From the pleadings and evidence of the case, it is clear that at the time of dishonour of cheque, there was sufficient amount in the account which was admitted by the Op No.1.  The second point is that no notice regarding non-availability of KYC document was given by the Ops to the complainant.  So, from the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that the Ops have adopted the act of unfair trade practice and they are deficient while rendering services to the complainant. 

11.            Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the Ops to credit a sum of Rs.173/- in the account of complainant and further to pay Rs.20,000/- as lump sum compensation on account of harassment, mental agony including the litigation charges.  Let the order be complied with within 30 days from the date of preparation of copy of this order, failing which, the complainant shall be entitled interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of order till its realization.  Both the Ops are jointly and severally liable.  A copy of said order be supplied to the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.     

Announced in open court:

Dt.:09.01.2019.  

                                                                        (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                        President.

 

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Neelam)       

Member                             Member.