Haryana

Karnal

504/2012

Lokesh Kumar S/o Amer Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

State Bank Of India, Megma Company - Opp.Party(s)

27 Oct 2014

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                           Complaint No.504of 2012

                                                               Date of instt.17.10.2012

                                                               Date of decision: 30.7.2015

 

Lokesh Kumar son of Sh.Amar Singh resident of house No.665/14, Jodia Kuan, Jundla Gate, Karnal.                                                          ………….Complainant.

 

                                                          Versus

1. State Bank of India, situated at old Anaj Mandi, Karnal through its  Manager.

2. Magma Company, Namastey Chowk,  Opposite Sector -4, Karnal through its Manager.

.

                                                                   ………..Opposite Parties.

 

 

                   Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer

                   Protection Act.

 

Before          Sh.K.C.Sharma……. President.

                   Smt.Shashi Sharma……….Member.

                  

 

 Present        Complainant in person.

                   Sh.R.K.Sharma Advocate for the OP No.1.

                   Sh.Vineet Rathore, Advocate for OP No.2.

ORDER:                    

 

                  This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, (herein after referred to as the Act) on the allegations that he is having his account No.19123/10113385046 with opposite party (in short OP) No.1. He obtained a loan of Rs.two lakhs from OP No.2, on 28.5.2011 for purchasing a car and the loan was to be repaid in 23 instalment of Rs.8700/- each. One instalment was paid in advance and the OP no.2 used to get encashed the cheques given by him every month.  On 1.9.2012, the OP no.2 presented the cheque of Rs.8700/- .  On that day, an amount of Rs.10428.44  was balance in his account and message to that effect was received in his mobile at 10.06AM.  However, the cheque presented by OP no.2 was dishonoured, rather an amount of Rs.102/- was debited in his account as penalty. The OP no.2 charged Rs.9/- per day as penalty   and Rs.1000/- as bouncing  charges. Due to dishonour of the cheque, his image diminished in the eyes of OP No.2 due to fault on the part of OP No.1. It has further been alleged by the complainant that OP no.2 was to present the cheque next month on 1.10.2012, but the cheque was presented on 29.9.2012, and the same was encashed.  The complainant has claimed an amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation from the Ops.

 

2.                On notice, the OP no.1 put into appearance and filed written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complaint is not maintainable as there was no deficiency in service on the part of OP no.1;  that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint as the cheque was presented for collection at Calcutta Branch of the bank and the same was dishonoured at Calcutta branch due to insufficient  funds;  that the complainant has concealed the material facts and that the complaint is not covered under the provisions of the Act.

 

                   On merits, it has been submitted that a cheque of Rs.8700/- was presented for collection in the bank on 1.9.2012, but it was not cashed due to insufficient funds at the time of presentation of the cheque. The amount of penalty was deducted as per norms of the bank. It has also been averred that complaint has been filed with malafide intention by making false allegations, in order to gain unlawfully

         

3.                 The OP No.2 filed separate written statement controverting the claim of complaint. Objections have been raised that complaint is not maintainable as the complainant has no cause of action against OP no.2; that as per terms and conditions  of the agreement,  claim and questions arising out of agreement shall be settled  through the Arbitrator and that courts at Calcutta alone have jurisdiction to settle this dispute  between the parties.

 

                   On merits, the factum of advancing loan to the complainant and  recovery of the same in 23 monthly instalments each of Rs.8700/- has not been disputed.  It has been submitted that due date of EMIs was Ist day of every month. As per agreement, the OP no.2 presented the cheque No.990979   dated 1.9.2012 to its banker who in turn transmitted the same to the complainants banker i.e. OP no.1   per bank norms and procedure.  The said cheque was returned unpaid for insufficient funds. Accordingly, cheque bouncing and penal charges were imposed upon the complainant.  It has further been submitted that in order to facilitate  its customers for  avoiding any sort of delay in  presentment of cheques, OP no.2 sent cheque No.9900979  dated 1.09.2012, two days in advance so that cheque may be honoured on due date. However, cheque dated 1.10.2012 was cleared on 29.9.2012 by banker of the complainant the credit of the said cheque was given to OP no.2 on 1.10.2012.

 

4.                 In evidence of complainant, he filed his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C8.

 

5.                In evidence of OP no.1, affidavit of Sarvesh Kumar, Branch Manager Ex.RW1/A has been filed.

 

                   In the evidence of OP no.2 affidavit of Shri Gurdeep Singh, Senior executive legal Ex.OP2/A and documents Ex.OP2/B to Ex.OP2/F have been filed.

 

 

6.                We have heard the complainant and the learned counsel for the Ops and have gone through the case file very carefully.

 

7.                The main controversy between the parties is regarding dishonour of the cheque No. 990979 dated 1.9.2012.  As per the case of the complainant he had deposited an amount of Rs.9000/-  in his account on 1.9.2012 and as such a balance of Rs.10428/-  was available in his account at 10.06AM, but  the cheque presented by OP no.2 was dishonoured.  OP no.1 has asserted that there was no sufficient amount in the account of the complainant when the cheque came for clearance and  for that reason the same was dishonoured.

8.                 Copy of the relevant  page  of account statement of the comlainant  shows that amount of Rs.1428.44P was balance in his account on 2.8.2012 and he had deposited an amount of Rs.9000/- in his account on 1.9.2012 and thus the balance amount in his account on 1.9.2012 was Rs.10428. 44.  The entry in the pass book  regarding deposit of Rs.9000/- is above the entry regarding dishonour of cheque and  deduction of amount of Rs.102/- on account of dishonour of cheque.

 

9.                 The complainant has vehemently argued that he had deposited Rs.9000/- in the bank at 10.00AM on 1.9.2012 and he received a message on his mobile regarding  deposit  at 10.06AM.  The entry in the pass book regarding the deposit prior to entry regarding dishonour also proves that amount was deposited prior to dishonour of the cheque and as such there was deficiency in services on the part of OP no.1

 

10.                    The argument advanced by the complainant on the face of it appears to be attractive but considering the bank procedure regarding clearing of cheques, such argument cannot be accepted. The copy of the  letter sent by Asstt.General Manager, CCPC,  Kolkata  to General Manager, SBI, Karnal shows that cheque presented for clearing to Kolkata Branch from RBI  at 6.00AM and  processed by uploading the clearing file  through system within 7.30AM daily and the system rejected the cheque for insufficient funds. It has further been clarified in the said letter that the customer on the same day after opening banking transaction hours deposited  by cash  Rs.9000/- and  then  the balance  was shown Rs.10328.44P, but before that cheque was  returned  marking for insufficient funds. Thus,  the said letter makes it  quite evident that cheque clearing cell deals with clearance of the cheques  instead of doing things manually and  clearing is done through system.

                 

 11.                        The OP no.2 in the written statement admitted regarding presentation of the cheque dated 1.10.2012 two days prior to the date i.e. 29.9.2012. It has also been  submitted  by OP no.2 in the written statement that in order to avoid any  sort of delay in presentation of the cheque, monthly instalment cheques are sent to  banker two days in advance so that cheque may be honoured on due date and installment be credited on due date , as per agreement. Thus, as per version of OP no.2, the cheque dated 1.9.2012 might have been presented two days in advance   and the same came for clearing through RBI at 6.00AM on 1.9.2012 whereas the amount of Rs.9000/- was deposited by complainant  in his account after opening of the bank at 10.00AM.  In this way, it is established that when the cheque came for clearing, amount was not sufficient in the account of the complainant and for that reason the cheque was dishonoured. Accordingly, no deficiency in services on the part of OP no.1 is established for dishonouring of cheque on account of insufficient funds.

 

12.               As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, we do not find any merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced
dated:30.07.2015                                                                             

                                                               (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                (Smt.Shashi Sharma)

                   Member.

 

 

 

                    Lokesh Vs.SBI

 

Present         Complainant in person.

                   Sh.R.K.Sharma Advocate for the OP No.1.

                   Sh.Vineet Rathore, Advocate for OP No.2

 

                   Arguments heard. For orders, the case is adjourned to 30.7.2015.

 

Announced
dated:29.07.2015                                                                            

                                                                (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                (Smt.Shashi Sharma)

                   Member.

 

Present         Complainant in person.

                   Sh.R.K.Sharma Advocate for the OP No.1.

                   Sh.Vineet Rathore, Advocate for OP No.2

 

                   Vide our separate order of the even date, the present complaint has been dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced
dated:29.07.2015                                                                             

                                                               (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                (Smt.Shashi Sharma)

                   Member.