Haryana

Panchkula

CC/477/2019

DR.ROBIN GUPTA. - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

RAJIV SHARMA.

01 Mar 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,  PANCHKULA.

                                                              

 

Consumer Complaint No	:	477 of 2019
Date of Institution	:	02.09.2019
Date of Decision	:	01.03.2021

 

Dr. Robin Gupta s/o Sh. Vipen Kumar Gupta aged about 33 years r/o Flat no.1503, Tower 11A, Suncity Parikarma, Sector-20, Panchkula-134116.  

                                                                                      ….Complainant

                                    Versus                                                                  

State Bank of India through its Branch Manager, Sector-20, Branch, Panchkula.

                                                                                     ….Opposite Party

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. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate for complainant

                           OP already ex-parte vide order dated 23.10.2019.

                          

ORDER

(Satpal, President)

1.               The brief facts of the present complaint as alleged are that the complainant having a Saving Bank Account with the State  Bank of India, Government Medical College and Hospital branch, Sector-32, Chandigarh and its account number is 20032304060. On 08.04.2019, the complainant  deposited  a cheque bearing no.245414 dated 15.01.2019 for a sum of Rs.54,000/- payable at par at Union Bank of India issued by Eden Critical Care Hospital Ltd in favour of the complainant at SBI e-corner branch, Panchkula. The receipt of the same is auto generated and duly received by the complainant at the same time. Further, on 15.04.2019, the complainant was shocked to receive the Cheque Return Memo 103741/ 048003/1440 dated 15.04.2019 with the remarks “INSTRUMENT OUT DATED/STALE”. He stated that the cheques are valid for a period of 3 months and the cheque was deposited in the account on 83rd day (08.04.2019) that was Monday. He has deposited the aforesaid cheque with the bank within time i.e. on 08.04.2019 for clearing and there was no bank holiday between 08.04.2019 to 12.04.2019. Due to the negligence and carelessness on the part of OP, the validity of said cheque dated 15.01.2019 expired and the complainant suffered a loss of Rs.54,000/- due to deficiency in service on the part of OP. The complainant has served a legal notice upon the OP through his counsel on 25.04.2019. In the reply of the said legal notice, the OP has admitted its fault but has stated that the system was not working on 09.04.2019 to 11.04.2019. The cheque was sent in clearing on 12.04.2019 and due to holiday on 13.04.2019 and 14.04.2019, the cheque was presented to the paying banker on 15.04.2019. As the cheque was dated 15.01.2019, it become outdated on 15.04.2019. In this digital era the technical error in the software are bound to occur which were beyond the control.  Thus, this act and conduct of the OP amounts to deficiency in service on its part; hence, the present complaint.

2.               Notice was issued to the OP through registered post (vide registered post No.RH38045877 on 24.09.2019 to OP, which was not received back either served or unserved despite the expiry of 30 days from the issuance of notice to OP; hence, it was deemed to be served and thus, due to non appearance of Op, he was proceeded ex-parte by this Forum vide its order dated 23.10.2019.

3.               The learned counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit as Annexure C-A along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-3 in evidence and closed the evidence by making a separate statement.

4.               We have heard the ld. counsel for the complainant and gone through the entire record available on the file minutely and carefully.

5.               The present complaint pertains to dishonoring of the cheque no.245414 dated 15.01.2019 issued by Eden Critical Care Hospital Ltd. payable at Union Bank of India on the ground that it has become out dated.  The main question in the present complaint to be seen is whether the cheque in question (Annexure C-1(colly)) was valid when it was presented by the complainant on 08.04.2019 in the State Bank of India i.e. OP. Undoubtedly, the cheque was presented in the OP Bank on 08.04.2019 for encashment from Union Bank of India, Chandigarh as per Annexure C-1. The validity of the cheque was three months and as such it was valid up to 14.04.2019. Therefore, the cheque was valid on 08.04.2019 when it was presented with the OP bank.

6.               The OP did not appear to contest the claim of the complainant and preferred to be proceeded ex-parte, for which adverse inference is liable to be drawn against him. The non-appearance of the OP despite notice shows that he has nothing to say in his defence or against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions made by the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted.

7.               On the other hand, the version of the complainant is fully supported and corroborated by his affidavit Annexure C-A, along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-3.

8.               Although there is no version of OP in the shape of its written statement alongwith affidavits etc. as it has been proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 23.10.2019 but reply sent by the OP in response to the legal notice dated 25.04.2019(Annexure C-2) is available on record as Annexure C-3 vide which it has been admitted by it that the system was not working between  09.04.2019 to 11.04.2019 and cheque was sent for clearance on 12.04.2019 and due to holiday on 13.04.2019 and 14.04.2019, the cheque was presented to the Union Bank of India i.e. paying bank on 15.04.2019. The OP has denied its liability stating that there was no fault on its part as in this digital era the technical error in the software are bound to occur which were beyond its control. The contention raised vide aforementioned reply(Annexure C-3) in response to legal notice (Annexure C-2) are not acceptable to us because the cheque in question was presented by the complainant during its validity period on 08.04.2019. For any technical error in the software, the consumer cannot be penalized or put to any loss as well as inconvenience. Thus, there is not even an iota of doubt with regard to the lapse and deficiency on the part of the OP while rendering the services to the complainant; hence the complainant is entitled for the relief.

9.               During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the complainant on 19.02.2021 informed us by making a statement that the complainant has received the payment of Rs.54,000/- as claimed in the present complaint and that the only issue that survives in the present complaint is with regard to payment of compensation to the complainant on account of mental agony, harassment and litigation charges.  In the present complaint, apart from the payment of Rs.54,000/-, the complainant has prayed for the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.25,000/- on account of mental agony, harassment as well as litigation charges. In our opinion, it would serve the ends of justice, if an amount of Rs.10,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment is awarded to the complainant alongwith litigation charges of Rs.5,500/-.

10.             As a sequel to the above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint with the following directions to the OP:-

1. To pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment.
2. To pay an amount of Rs.5,500/- as cost of litigation charges.

11.             The OP shall comply with the directions/order within a period of 30 days from the date of communication of copy of this order to OP failing which the complainant shall be entitled to the interest @9% per annum from the date of receipt of this order till its realization. The complainant shall also be at liberty to approach this Commission for initiation of proceedings under Section 71 of CP Act, against the OP. 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: 01.03.2021

 

           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