Haryana

Panchkula

cc/225/2018

SH.KULBHUSHAN SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

STATE BANK OF INDIA (Erstwhile SBOP) - Opp.Party(s)

SAWROOP SINGH & SONIA MEHTA

29 Jul 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PANCHKULA

 

                                                       

Consumer Complaint No	:	225 of 2018
Date of Institution	:	16.11.2018
Date of Decision	:	29.07.2022

 

Kulbhushan Singh son of Sh. Teja Singh, Village Rampur Siuri, PO, Surajpur, Tehsil Kalka, District Panchkula(Haryana).

                                                                        ..….Complainant

Versus                                                                  

1.     State Bank of India, (Erstwhile SBOP), HQ Western Command, Chandimandir Cantt Branch, Panchkula(Haryana)-134109 through its Branch Manager.

2.     Headquarters Western Command Chandimandir through Director Military Farms.

                                                                      ……Opposite Parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 35 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019.

 

Before:              Sh. Satpal, President.

Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini, Member.

Dr. Sushma Garg, Member.

 

For the Parties:   Sh. Sawroop Singh, Advocate for the complainant.

                        Ms. Alka Joshi, Advocate for OPs No.1 & 2.

                                               

ORDER

(Satpal, President)

 

1.             The brief facts of the present complaint as alleged are that the complainant is employed with HQ Western Command and his monthly wages/salary is disbursed to him through SBI, saving bank account no.MSB55059299468 maintained with OP No.1 operated by the complainant. On 27.11.2017, an amount of Rs.11,216/-was credited in the saving bank account of the complainant and there was a balance of Rs.12,559.55 in the account and a message to this effect was received on the linked mobile telephone. It is stated that the complainant issued a cheque no.570637 of Rs.3000/- which was drawn in favour of Smt.Babli Devi on 27.11.2017 to discharge his pre-existing liability. On presentation, the cheque was dishonored on 02.12.2017 and he received a messaged on his linked mobile that an amount of Rs.590/- was deducted from his account.  Also, another cheque no.570636 was issued in favour of Sh.Kuldeep Singh to whom complainant was obligated to discharge his liability of Rs.5,000/- and on presentation, this cheque was also dishonored on 04.12.2017 and an  amount of Rs.590/- was deducted from the account of the complainant. He even tried to withdraw the amount twice on 27.11.2017 through ATM card but both the times the transaction failed. From pass-book entries it is found that Rs.23.60 for each failed transaction had been charged. Further, on 01.12.2017, a message was received on the mobile phone of the complainant that Rs.11,216/- has been transferred to Sh. Ram Sevak and account balance is Rs.1,296.35. The complainant neither knows the said Sh.Ram Sevak nor gave any instructions, written or verbal for transfer of the said amount nor even issued any cheque in favour of said Sh.Ram Sevak. The complainant made the payments in cash and took back the cheques issued from the respective drawees.  Dishonoring the cheques in question despite of sufficient funds in the account, imposing a penalty and then transferring the money from the account without the consent of the complainant is against the banking norms and also amounts to deficiency of service for which OP is liable to be proceeded with under the Act. The complainant has also served a legal notice upon the OPs but of no avail. Due to the act and conduct of OPs, the complainant has suffered a great deal of financial loss and mental agony, harassment; hence, the present complaint.

2.             Upon notices, OPs No.1 & 2 appeared through counsel and filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua complaint is not maintainable being vexatious, vague; no locus-sandi; estoppels; time-barred; mis-joinder and non-joinder; the complainant has not come with clean hands; suppressed the material facts and no cause of action. It is submitted that the complainant is having his bank account no.55059299468. The HQ Western Command Chandimandir Unit has given the letter to disburse the total amount of Rs.45,252/- in the name of different persons. As per directions of the said Unit, the bank has disbursed the amount to the different accounts numbers so provided by the unit. Thereafter, the said HQ Western Command Unit has issued a letter bearing No.661291/MF/(FS)/Garden dated 27.11.2017 to the bank that the name of the complainant has been wrongly mentioned in the nominal role instead of Sh.Ram Sevak account No.65051510327 and the amount may not be released to the said person. Since the amount of Rs.11,216/- was debited into the account of the complainant, and when  the unit sent a letter, the bank immediately hold the account of the complainant and thereafter, the bank immediately  transferred the said amount from the account of the complainant to the account holder, namely, Ram Sevak bearing account no.65051510327. Therefore, the amount in the account of the complainant was insufficient to honour the cheques given by the complainant. The complainant was not having any amount to his account. On merits, it is submitted that as per information of the bank, the said cheque was presented and dishonored on its presentation to the bank and as per the RBI Guidelines, the bank has deducted the amount from the account of the complainant on account of dishonor of the said cheque as there was no funds into the account of the complainant. Further, denying rest of allegations made by the complainant in his complaint and there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs No.1 & 2 and the complainant has not suffered any harassment or agony and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit as Annexure C-A along with document Annexure C-1 to C-12 and closed the evidence by making a separate statement. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OPs No.1 & 2 has tendered affidavit Annexure R-1/A & R-2/A along with documents Annexure R-1/1 to R-1/3 and Annexure R-2/1 to R-2/6 and closed the evidence.

4.             We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and gone through the entire record available on file, including written arguments filed by the complainant as well as OPs, minutely and carefully.

5.             During arguments, the learned counsel for the complainant, while reiterating the averments made in the complaint, has prayed for acceptance of the complaint by directing the OP No.1 to refund the  amount of Rs.11,216/- which was illegally debited from the account bearing no.55059299468 of the complainant with OP No.1 and to reverse the two entries of a sum  of Rs.590/- each, which was also debited from the said account on account of dishonor of cheque and further to reverse two entries of Rs.23.60 each for failed ATM Transactions. The main grouse of the complainant is that his account was illegally kept on hold on 27.11.2017 by OP No.1 and thereafter, a sum of Rs.11,216/- was debited from his account on 01.12.2017 by transferring the same in the account of Sh.Ram Sevak.  As per version of the complainant, the aforesaid act on the part of OP No.1 firstly by keeping his account on hold on 27.11.2017 and thereafter, transferring the amount of Rs.11216/- from his account into the account of Sh.Ram Sevak on 01.12.2017 were invalid and illegal as the OP no.1 was never instructed or authorized by him to transfer the said amount into account of Sh.Ram Sevak. The submissions of the learned counsel for the complainant may be summarized as under:- 

i.      That a sum of Rs.11,216/- was credited into the account of the complainant on 27.11.2017 as per Annexure C-1 & C-2 and the        available balance in his account was Rs.12,559.55, but the   cheque issued by the complainant in favour of Smt. Babli Devi   for a sum of Rs.3,000/- was dishonored on 02.12.2017 thereby       imposing the dishonoring charges on the complaint. Further,         another cheque issued by the complainant in favour of Sh.      Kuldeep Singh was also wrongly dishonored, whereby the complainant was charged a sum of Rs.590/- as bouncing    charges. Further, a sum of Rs.23.60+ Rs.23.60 was wrongly charged on account of failed ATM transaction on 27.11.2017.

ii.      That the OP No.1 was never authorized or instructed to transfer         the amount of Rs.11,216/- into account of Sh.Ram Sevak on 01.12.2017.

iii.     That the OP No.2 verbally terminated the services of the   complainant on 01.12.2017, on account of which, a writ petition       CWP No.4434/2018 was filed in Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana,        High Court,Chandigarh, wherein interim order dated 23.02.2018         (Annexure C-12) in favour of the complainant asking the OP      No.2 to restore the services of the complainant, were passed.

iv.     That the complainant was being disbursed less wages and was   not regularized even after rendering more than 24 years of    continuous service; so he raised a dispute under ID Act and during the pendency of said dispute the OP No.2 verbally terminated his services on 01.12.2017.

v.     That the bouncing charges have been deducted by OP No.1/bank       from the account of the complainant while acting contrary to the    banking norms as well as the instructions of RBI.

vi.     That the appointment of said Sh.Ram Sevak, in place of the      complainant, was wrong, invalid and illegal being contrary to      selection laws applicable in the matter.

6.             On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs No.1 & 2 has justified the Act of OP No.1 while keeping the account of the complainant on hold on 27.11.2017 on the ground that OP No.2 vide its letter dated 27.11.2017(Annexure R-2/4) had asked the OP No.1 to credit the sum of Rs.11,216/- in the account of Sh.Ram Sevak account no.65051510327 instead of Sh.Kulbhushan account no.55059299468 i.e. the complainant. The learned counsel contended that the tenure of the complainant had expired on 30.09.2017 as per Agreement (Annexure R-2/1) and in his place Sh.Ram Sevak was selected as per employment letter(Annexure R-2/2) w.e.f. 03.10.2017 to 31.10.2018 for 11 months and thus, it is contended that the account of the complainant was rightly kept on hold by the OP No.1 and thereafter, a sum of Rs.11,216/- was validly and legally transferred into the account of the said Ram Sevak.

7.             After hearing the rival contentions of the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the entire record available on the file, it is found that the main grievance of the complainant is with regard to the keeping of his account on hold on 27.11.2017 and further, transferring of amount of Rs.11,216/- from his account into the account of the said Ram Sevak on 01.12.2017. The OP No.1 has taken the shelter of letter dated 27.11.2017(Annexure R-2/4) as received by it from OP No.2. We have perused the said letter issued by the OP No.2 to OP No.1 asking for the transferring of Rs.11,216/- from the account of the complainant into account  of the said Sh.Ram Sevak. On close perusal, it has been found that the said amount was wrongly credited into the account of the complainant. The aforesaid letter (Annexure R-2/4) was supported with the details of other workers vide pay bill(Annexure R-2/5), according to which a sum of Rs.11,216/-  was to be paid in favour of Ram Sevak not in favour of the complainant. The said pay bill bears the signatures of all the persons/workers as well as the Col.P.K.Bahuguna, Director MF, HQ Western Command. It is not the case of the complainant that the aforesaid letter(Annexure R-2/4) supported by the pay bill (Annexure 2/5) is not genuine. Even otherwise the complainant has not disputed the genuineness and correctness of the said documents. Moreover, we find on record, the agreement(Annexure C-2/1) qua the employment of the complainant with OP No.2, according to which, the tenure was for a period of 12 months,  commencing from 30.09.2016 and thus, the contract of the complainant had expired on 30.09.2017. Furthermore the employment of the said Ram Sevak vide letter (Annexure R-2/2) and Annexure 2/3 is also available on record, which has not been disputed by the complainant. Therefore, no deficiency can be attributed on the part of the OP No.1 while keeping the account of the complainant on hold on 27.11.2017 and thereafter, transferring a sum of Rs.11,216/- from his account into the account of the said Ram Sevak.

8.             In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find no force and substance in the version of the complainant; hence, the complaint of the complainant deserves to be dismissed and accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced on:29.07.2022

 

 

 

          Dr.Sushma Garg         Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini             Satpal

                  Member                  Member                          President

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                             Satpal

                                            President