BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Complt. Case No : 1358 of  2009

Date of Institution:    05.10.2009

Date of Decision  :    19.11.2010

Ghanshyam Dass Goyal son of Sh. Jagan Nath, Resident of H.No. 647, Milk Colony, Dhanas, U.T. Chandigarh.

……Complainant

V E R S U S

[1]    State Bank of India, through its Chief General Manager, Local Head Office, Sector 17, U.T. Chandigarh.

[2]        Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Ram Darbar Branch, U.T. Chandigarh.

.…..Opposite Parties

CORAM:        SH.LAKSHMAN SHARMA            PRESIDENT

                SH.ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI         MEMBER

                MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA                  MEMBER

PRESENT:   Complainant in person.

Sh. K.S. Arya, Adv. for OPs.

PER MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER

                The instant complaint has been filed by Sh. Ghanshyam Dass Goyal son of Shri Jagan Nath against SBI, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.  The Complainant has alleged that the OPs have wrongly debited Rs.28,408/- from his savings bank account, without his permission.

                The facts of the case are as under:

1]             The Complainant who is an ex-employee of the OPs was operating a savings bank account with the OPs in their Ram Darbar Branch. On 9.6.2009, there was a credit balance of Rs.3,04,243.49P in the account.

                The Complainant has stated that he entered into an agreement for purchase of a land for consideration amount of Rs.6,00,000/-. He paid Rs.25,000/- in cash and Rs.25,000/- by way of post-dated cheque dated 1.7.2009 to the Seller. The rest of the amount was to be paid on or before 31.10.2009.  As per a clause in the Agreement between the parties, if the cheque bounced, the biana paid in cash would stand forfeited and the deal would be terminated. 

                On 3.7.2009, when the Complainant visited the Bank, he found that Rs.28,408/- has been debited from his savings account and the credit balance had been reduced to Rs.17,364.49P.  When he questioned the Bank about this illegal withdrawal, he received a letter from OP No.2, saying that the matter had been made explicit to him vide letter dated 18.5.2009. The Complainant had not received any such letter. He, therefore, told the OPs that if the cheque issued by him got dishonoured, the entire responsibility would lie with the Bank, but the OPs never credited the amount back to the account of the Complainant.

                When the Cheque was presented for encashment by the Seller of the property, it bounced and as a consequence thereof, the agreement was terminated.  The Complainant, then, sent a legal notice to OP No. 2, alleging that he was entitled to the subsistence allowance. This was duly replied back by the OPs, who said that the employer employee contract had ended and the wrongly credited amount had been debited back.

                Not satisfied by the reply received, the Complainant has filed the instant complaint, with a prayer that the OPs be directed to put back the amount in his savings account and also award compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- on account of forfeiture of earnest money and cancellation of deal, due to which he has suffered considerable monetary loss. The Complainant has also prayed for compensation for mental agony and costs of litigation.

2]             After admission of the complaint, notices were sent to the OP.

                In the reply filed by OPs, they have taken the preliminary objection that the Complainant who was their ex-employee was removed from service w.e.f. 21.4.2009. After this termination, the right to receive any subsistence allowance and/or salary also ended when the Employer – Employee relationship between the OPs and the Complainant came to an end. The Complainant was, thus, not entitled to any amount from the OPs after his removal.

                Unfortunately, the OPs, by mistake, credited Rs.28,408/- into the account of the Complainant for subsistence allowance for the period 22.4.2009 to 30.6.2009. Since this was a purely mistaken credit, the amount was debited back and the Complainant was informed accordingly.

                On merits, the OPs have reiterated the same facts taken in the preliminary objections. Further, they have submitted that when the Cheque issued by the Complainant was presented, it was first returned with the remarks  “Effects not clear, present again” vide Memo dated 31.7.2009. The Complainant was also duly informed telephonically in this regard by OP No. 2, immediately, although the same was not required. 

                The OPs contend that they are not liable for dishonour of the cheque.  There is gross negligence by the Complainant himself, because he could not keep a sufficient balance in his account to ensure payment even after information in this regard was given to him by the OPs. If the Complainant had himself been cautious to preserve sufficient balance in his account, he would not have lost out on the alleged deal of property. Denying all their allegations, the OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

3]             We have heard the Complainant in person and the ld.Counsel for the OPs and have also perused the evidence & documents led by the parties in support of their contentions.

4]             The Complainant’s grouse against the OPs is that they have illegally withdrawn an amount of Rs.28,408/- from his account, without any justification or even informing him. He had issued a post-dated cheque for a land deal, which got dishonoured, due to non-availability of adequate funds in the account. He is now fostering the entire liability of cancellation of the land deal on the OPs, due to dishonour of cheque. It is very interesting that a person wants to buy a property worth lakhs of rupees, but cannot maintain a balance of even Rs.25,000/- in his account. He would definitely have needed much more than that for making the entire payment of his deal.

                The OPs have submitted that the amount related to subsistence allowance and was wrongly credited into the account of the Complainant, after his termination from service. This amount was accordingly, debited back from his account, when the mistake was detected.

5]             The Chief Manager of SBI, in his evidence, by way of affidavit has said that the Complainant was very well aware of the fact that he was not entitled to the amount. The OPs had also intimated him about the same in writing. Despite this intimation, the Complainant never took any steps to rectify the requirements of honour of his cheque.

                It is maintained in the affidavit that it is a settled principle of law that “unjust enrichment” is not permissible when there is no legal right for retaining such enrichment and as such, the Complainant is dis-entitled from claiming any such amount.

6]             A perusal of the above facts and averments made by the OPs and the Complainant, clearly show that the bank officials have discharged their duties with utmost honesty and sincerity, without discriminating against the Complainant. An amount was wrongly credited into his account, on account of subsistence allowance, which was not payable to him. The Complainant, apparently, had no objection on this credit, but when the amount was debited from his account, he has filed the instant complaint, claiming that the OPs have acted wrongly and unjustly.

7]             We do not feel that the action of the OPs is arbitrary or wrong in any way. An error committed, has been rectified and if the Complainant has suffered any loss, it was due to his own fault alone, especially, when the OPs duly informed him about the factual position, when the cheque was presented for payment. The cheque was, obviously, subsequently dishonoured, when the Complainant failed to maintain the required funds into his account.

8]             In view of the above findings, we are of the opinion that this complaint needs dismissal. The complaint is accordingly, dismissed.  Both parties may bear their own costs.

9]             Certified copies of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced                                                                   

19^th Nov., 2010

Sd/-

                                                          LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

                                                                   Sd/-

                                       (ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI)

MEMBER

                                                                                                Sd/-

                                                    (MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

‘Dutt’