BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAS NAGAR, MOHALI

                                  Consumer Complaint No.264 of 2015

                                 Date of institution:          04.06.2015

                                              Date of Decision:            11.09.2015

T.L. Garg son of late Amar Nath, resident of H.No.29, Phase-1, Mohali.

    ……..Complainant

                                        Versus

State Bank of India, SCO No.35, Phase-1, SAS Nagar, Mohali through its Branch Manager.

………. Opposite Party

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

CORAM

Mrs. Madhu. P. Singh, President.

Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member

Mrs. R.K. Aulakh, Member.

Present:    Complainant in person.

                Opposite Party exparte.

(Mrs. Madhu P. Singh, President)

ORDER

                The complainant has filed the present complaint seeking following direction to the Opposite Party (for short ‘the OP’) to:

(a)    tender unconditional apology and issue letter to PSPCL clarifying the whole position and request them to allow the complainant to pay bills by way of cheque in future.

(b)    pay Rs.688/- penal charges paid by the complainant to PSPCL

(c)    pay him Rs.4,00,000/- as charges for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

(d)    pay him litigation charges to the tune of Rs.7,000/-. 

                The case of the complainant is that is having account No.10506705593 with the OP which was transferred from Sector 7, Chandigarh.  The complainant has cheque books issued by Sector 7 Chandigarh Branch and the complainant had been issuing various cheques which are being honored. The complainant was told that the account number has not been changed and only the branch has been changed so the earlier cheque book is valid. The complainant issued cheque No.582714 in favour of PSPCL on 27.5.2014 for Rs.6,880/- but the said cheque was returned on the ground ‘present in proper’. The complainant also received notice from PSPCL. The complainant deposited the amount of bill in cash alongwith late payment charges.  Prior to this the complainant had issued cheque No.582713 on 29.3.2014 in the name of PSPCL and cheque No.582715 on 07.06.2014 for Rs.13,851/- in the name of LIC which were honored. The complainant approached the OP but no explanation was provided to him. The complainant also applied for fresh cheque book to the OP on 02.05.2014 and the OP told him that it will be delivered within three days. The complainant approached the OP after waiting for 10 days and he was told that the account of the complainant is non cheque book account and cheque book cannot be issued. The complainant explained that the cheque book is already issued by Sector 7 Branch and after lot of effort the same was supplied to the complainant. The complainant suffered a loss of penal charges of Rs.688/- besides loss of reputation. The complainant has been debarred by the PSPCL to deposit bills by way of cheque in future and has been advised to deposit the bill either in cash or through draft.  The complainant served a legal notice upon the OP but his grievance has not been redressed till date. With these allegations the complainant has filed the present complaint.

2.             After admission of the complaint, notice was sent to the OP.  None appeared for it despite service. Therefore, the Op was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 13.07.2015.

3.             To succeed in the complaint, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 and copies of documents Ex.C-1 to C-6.

4.             We have heard the complainant and have also gone through the written arguments submitted by him.

5.             The complainant is account holder with SBI Sector 7, Chandigarh and has got saving account transferred to OP Branch. The complainant was issued cheque book by Sector 7 Branch Chandigarh and the cheque book was valid for the present transferred account also. From this account the complainant has issued cheque No.582713 dated 29.03.2014 in the name of PSPCL for making electricity charges payment and another cheque no.582715 dated 07.06.2014 for Rs.13,851/- in the name of LIC for making premium of his insurance and both the cheques have been honoured. However, cheque No.582714 dated 27.05.2014 in favour of PSPCL has been returned to the complainant  with the remarks ‘present in proper zone’. Therefore, the PSPCL has returned the cheque to the complainant alongwith return memo. Due to the not honouring of cheque of Rs.6680/- for wrong reasons, the complainant has been burdened with penalty of Rs.668/- for non payment of electricity charges in time. The complainant, therefore, has alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP for returning his cheque on wrong footing whereas two cheques No.582713 and 582715 issued from the same cheque have been honoured by the bank.

6.             Since the OP has chosen to remain absent from the proceedings despite proper and effective service of notice of the pendency of the present complaint before this Forum. As per decision, of Hon’ble Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in K.D.Ajay Khosh Vs. M/s. Alliance Habitat, 2013(2) CLT 389 there is a presumption that the plea raised by the complainant being unrebutted amounts to admission on the part of the OP.  The dispute is regarding cheque No.582714 dated 27.05.2014 issued by the complainant from his saving account No.10506705593 State Bank of India in favour of PSPCL for payment of electricity bill – electricity account No.3000170642 and  No.3000170263 and the PSPCL had issued the receipt dated 30.05.2014 against the deposit of cheque. The said cheque has not been honoured by the banker and returned to the PSPCL on 04.06.2014 as per Ex.C-3 with the remarks ‘present in proper zone’.  The PSPCL thereafter returned the cheque to the complainant vide letter dated 30.06.2014 Ex.C-4  wherein the dishonoured cheque alongwith return memo has been sent to the complainant and further the complainant was directed to pay the electricity bill alongwith penalty charges for late payment of the electricity bill. As per the complainant he has made payment of the electricity and paid Rs.668/- as penalty charges which he was forced to pay due to the arbitrary and negligent act of the OP who has dishonoured the cheque on wrong footings i.e. present in proper zone whereas the cheque being a micr cheque is payable at par branch and the said fact has been acknowledged by the OP in its return memo dated 04.06.2014. Thus, not honouring the cheque of the complainant by the OP has caused harassment and financial loss to the complainant as he has been made to pay the penalty amount of Rs.668/- for delay in electricity payment charges beyond the cut off date for making such payments.

7.             The complainant has not produced any record to show payment of penalty charges of Rs.668/-  and receipt thereof having been issued by the PSPCL. In order to support his contention, he has submitted his affidavit by way of evidence. Further to show the blatant mistake and negligent and arbitrary act of the OP in declining the honuring of cheque in question has proved the honouring of cheque No. 582713  and 582715   having been issued from the same cheque book and one cheque No. 582713 to the same party i.e. PSPCL by the OP. Thus the following of two yardsticks of honouring/dishonouring the cheques by the OP is an act of negligence, arbitrariness and that amounts to deficiency in service by the OP. the complainant being a senior citizen has, therefore, prayed for unconditional apology from the OP and restrain the OP from indulging into such acts in future and refund Rs.668/- paid by him as penal charges to the PSPCL due to the negligent act of the OP besides compensation and litigation expenses. We take support from the decision of Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as  Pirmal Enterprises Limited Vs. Sukhdev Mustafi & others 2014(3) CLT 60. Since the complainant has proved his case of deficiency in service due to the blatant mistake i.e. negligent and arbitrary act of dishonouring the cheque in question, the complaint, therefore, deserves to be allowed and the complainant deserves to be compensated.

8.             Hence the complaint is allowed against the OP with the following directions:

(a)    to pay him Rs.668/-  (Rs. Six hundred sixty eight only) alongwith interest @ 9%  per annum w.e.f. 04.06.2014  i.e. the date of return memo till realisation.

(b)    to pay him Rs.5,000/- (Rs. Five thousand only) as lump sum compensation towards mental agony and litigation costs.

                Compliance of this order be made within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Certified copies of the order be furnished to the parties forthwith free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced.                           

September 11, 2015.    

                        (Mrs. Madhu P. Singh)

                                                                        President

(Amrinder Singh Sidhu )

Member

(Mrs. R.K. Aulakh)

Member