Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/19/508

Jaspreet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

State Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

Davinder Kumar Adv.

06 Feb 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 508 dated 31.10.2019.                                                        Date of decision: 06.02.2023.

 

Jaspreet Singh aged about 37 years son of Sh. Jangir Singh, resident of village  Dudhal, Tehsil Payal, Distt. Ludhiana. Mobile No.98141-80010.                                                                                                  ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

1. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Branch Malaudh, Distt. Ludhiana.
2. The General Manager, State Bank of India, Local Head Office Sector 17-B, Chandigarh-160017.
3. State Bank of India, State Bank Bhavan, 16^th Floor Madam Cama Road, Mumbai-400021.

                                                                                       …..Opposite parties

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. D.K. Sharma, Advocate.

For OP1                         :         Sh. Rajeev Abhi, Advocate.

For OP2 and OP3          :         Complaint against OP2 and OP3 not admitted                                             vide order dated 15.11.2019.

 

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

1.                Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant has been regularly maintaining and operating the savings account No.65031522789 with the opposite parties. The complainant stated that one Jagjit Singh son of Tilak Singh resident of village Kishanpura, Tehsil Payal, Dist. Ludhiana proprietor of Punjab Enterprises, who in discharge of his legal liability, issued a of Rs.9,40,000/- bearing No.624289 dated 16.07.2019 out of his account No/.38478913119 maintained with opposite party No.1 and assured to present the same for collection of amount of Rs.9,40,000/- as he has sufficient funds in his account to honour the cheque.  On the assurance of said Jagjit Singh, the complainant presented the cheque with opposite party No.1 on 16.07.2019 but opposite party No.1 did not honour the cheque nor returned the same. The complainant came to know that opposite party No.1 has misplaced the said cheque and did not give proper reply rather abused him with filthy language despite repeated visits of the complainant. The complainant further stated that he also made online complaint but did not receive any reply to the said complaint. However, he received a call from the opposite parties that the cheque deposited by him has been dishonoured and he can collect the said cheque and memo from the concerned bank but the complainant made request that opposite party No.1 is inimical towards him and he has an apprehension that he can be beaten on reaching the bank of opposite party and also requested to deliver the dishonoured cheque and memo on his address. The opposite parties did not admit his request nor supplied the cheque or cheque return memo. Thereafter, the complainant visited the bank of opposite party No.1 and on his visit the employees and manager of opposite party No.1 tried to snatch the deposit sip vide which the above said cheque has been presented with them and threatened the complainant that the drawer of the cheque is known to them and with his help they can implicate the complainant in some false case of theft of cheque and dared the complainant to do whatever he can. The complainant issued legal notice dated 01.08.2019 upon the opposite parties through his counsel to which opposite party No.1 in its reply dated 01.08.2019 took a contradictory stand that the complainant has presented the cheque bearing No.624247 instead of cheque No.624289 and further alleged that the cheque No.624247 along with memo can be collected from the bank any time within bank’s working day and time. The complainant further stated that as he was having an apprehension of being beaten, he issued an application through post on 06.09.2019 for supplying the cheque and memo at his address and he also attached registered letter with his application to enabling opposite party No.1 to send the alleged cheque No.624247 along with memo and copy of voucher dated 16.07.2019. Opposite party No.1 duly received the said application but failed to supply the cheque and memo till today. Moreover, the complainant at the time of presenting the cheque No.624247 dated 16.07.2019 of Rs.9,40,000/- field the deposit sip where  cheque No.624289 can be seen with naked eye and he also clicked the photograph of the said cheque with his mobile at the time of its presentation with the bank. The opposite parties have failed to honour the presented cheque and they also failed to return the said cheque along with cheque return memo which he has never received till date as opposite party No.1 has lost the cheque of the complainant. The said act and conduct of the opposite parties has deprived the complainant of his legal rights against the person who issued the cheque bearing No.624289 in his favour and the complainant has also suffered a loss of Rs.9,40,000/- as the opposite parties have lost the cheque and failed to return the same to the complainant. The act and conduct of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practices for which he is entitled to be compensation for his entire amount of Rs.9,40,000/- along with interest @12% per annum w.e.f. 16.07.2019 and also entitled for compensation on account of physical pain, mental agony, trauma faced by him and litigation expenses. In the end, the complainant has prayed for issuing direction to the opposite parties to pay Rs.9,40,000/- of the cheque with interest and also to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-.

2.                The complaint as against opposite party No.2 and 3 was not admitted vide order dated 15.11.2019.

3.                Upon notice, opposite party No.1 appeared and filed written statement. In the written statement, opposite party No.1 assailed the complaint  on the ground of maintainability, lack of jurisdiction, concealment of material facts and for non-joinder of necessary parties. Opposite party No.1 alleged that the complainant never presented cheque No.624289 dated 16.07.2019 for a sum of Rs.9,40,000/- with it for collection on 16.07.2019 as mentioned in deposit/pay in slip dated 16.07.2019. Actually, the complainant had presented cheque No.624247 dated 16.07.2019 for a sum of Rs.9,40,000/- with opposite party No.1 for collection as per record of the bank maintained by the bank in regular and usual course of banking business. The cheque No.624247 dated 16.07.2019 was dis-hounored  vide bank’s memo dated 16.07.2019 but the complainant did not collect the original cheque No.624247 dated 16.07.2019 along with original memo from opposite party No.1 till now for the reasons best know to him. Opposite party No.1 further alleged that the cheque number presented in its branch and cheque number mentioned in the complaint filed by the complainant is different as the complainant had written the wrong cheque number in the bank voucher/deposit pay in slip and also somehow managed to get the stamp of the bank affixed on the counter foil of the deposit pay in slip. In fact, the cheque number presented with opposite party No.1 for collection was cheque No.624247 dated 16.07.2019 instead of cheque No.624289 dated 16.07.2019. The complainant never presented cheque No.624289 dated 16.07.2019 for collection with opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.1 maintains the records in the shape of vouchers in the regular and usual course of its banking deals and the detail of the cheques received for clearing on 16.07.2019 is reproduced as under:-

Cheque No.	Date	Bank	Amount
624247	16.07.2019	SBI	9,40,000/-
6919		OBC	15,000/-
611756		SBI	46,000/-
243189		SBI	42,000/-
505814		SBI	2,50,000/-
698564		SBI	2,95,000/-
517232		SBI	2,50,000/-
130239		SBI	1,30,000/-
522897		SBI	2,00,000/-

 

Opposite party No.1 further alleged that the complainant can receive the cheque No.624247 along with the memo at any time within the banks’ working day and time. This fact was also intimated to the complainant on telephone on 16.07.2019 and subsequently the complainant was also intimated in reply to the notice dated 13.08.2019 but the complainant till date has not visited the bank for collection of original cheque No.624247 dated 16.07.2019. In spite of receipt of the reply, the complainant still insisted for receipt of cheque No.624289 dated 16.07.2019 taking the advantage of the wrong number of the cheque mentioned in deposit/pay in slip and voucher dated 16.07.2019 filled by the complainant himself which the complainant filled either due to inadvertence or due to some malafide intentions to harass the bank officials. Opposite party No.1 alleged that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties since M/s. Punjab Enterprises, Maloud Road, Shop No.52, Dudhal Near Bus Stand Dudhal, Tehsil Payal, District Ludhiana is not made a party to the present complaint as the same is a necessary and proper party to the present complaint.

                   On merits, opposite party No.1 reiterated the crux of averments made in the preliminary objections and has denied any deficiency in service on its part. Opposite party No.1 has admitted that the complainant presented cheque No.624247 dated 16.07.2019 for a sum of Rs.9,40,000/- for collection  and he himself filed the deposit sip which was duly received by opposite party No.1 on 16.07.2019 and on the said deposit sip the cheque No.624289 can be seen with the naked eye. However, the same was dishonoured vide memo dated 16.07.2019 but the complainant did not collect the cheque and memo from it till now for the reasons best known to the complainant. Opposite party No.1 further alleged that it has never committed any alleged act which could be termed as unprofessional as alleged in the complaint. Further the complainant has not lodged any online complaint as alleged by him. The complainant has put forward a false and concocted story of misbehave with him by the bank officials. However, the officials of opposite party No.1 are most respectful persons and are always courteous with their customers for whom they have all regards, respect and treat them as god so there is no question of any alleged apprehension as alleged by the complainant. The complainant has never requested opposite party No.1 to send the cheque or memo at his address. Moreover, there is no provision and practice of delivering the cheque and memo at the address of the complainant. The complainant never visited the opposite party so the question of snatching the deposit slip or extending any alleged threats does not arise. Opposite party No.1 further alleged that it never received any alleged application posted on 06.09.2019.perusal of the receipt comparing with the receipts attached with notice dated 01.08.2019 clearly shows that it is forged and fabricated document having been prepared by the complainant for the purpose of filing the present complaint. Moreover, dates on the receipts are computerized and nor manual whereas the alleged receipt produced is manual. The complainant has only produced one receipt however he has sent the application to three addresses. Opposite party No.1 further alleged that the bank is ready to deliver the original cheque No.624247 and original memo dated 16.07.2019 before the Commission. In the end, opposite party No.1 has also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                The complainant has filed rejoinder to the written statement reiterating the facts mentioned in the complaint and controverting those mentioned in the written statement. The complainant submitted that Jagjit Singh of Punjab Enterprises sworn an  affidavit wherein he admitted that he issued a cheque bearing No.624289 for the sum of Rs.9,40,000/- in order to discharge his legal liability or debt towards the complainant.

5.                In support of his claim, the complainant tendered his affidavit Ex. CA in which he reiterated the allegations and the claim of compensation as stated in the complaint. The complainant also tendered documents Ex. C1 is the copy of cheque No.624289 dated 16.07.2019 of Rs.9,40,000/-, Ex. C2 is the copy of deposit/pay in slip dated 16.07.2019, Ex. C3 is the legal notice dated 01.08.2019, Ex. C4 to Ex. C6 are the copies of postal receipts, Ex. C7 is the reply dated 13.08.2019 to the legal notice dated 01.08.2019, Ex. C8 is the copy of application dated 05.09.2019 written by the complainant to the opposite parties, Ex. C9 is the copy of postal receipt, Ex. C10 is the copy of Aadhar card of the complainant and closed the evidence.

6.                On the other hand, counsel for opposite party No.1 tendered affidavit Ex. RA of Sh. Avtar Singh, Branch Manager  of opposite party No.1 along with documents Ex. R1 is the copy of cheque No.624247 dated 16.07.2019 for Rs.9,40,000/-, Ex. R2 is the copy of cheque returning memo dated 16.07.2019, Ex. R3 is the copy of deposit/pay in slip dated 16.07.2019, Ex. R4 is the copy of legal notice dated 01.08.2019 issued by the complainant, Ex. R5 is the reply dated 13.08.2019 to the legal notice dated 01.08.2019, Ex. R6 is the copy of statement of account of the complainant, Ex. R7 is the statement of account of M/s. Punjab Enterprises, Ex. R8 is the copy of cheque referred and returned register and closed the evidence.

7.                We have heard the arguments of the counsel for the parties and also gone through the complaint, rejoinder, affidavit and annexed documents and written reply along with affidavit and documents produced on record by both the parties.        

8.                Perusal of para no.9 of the complaint as well as his affidavit Ex. CA shows that the complainant had admitted that he has presented cheque bearing No.624247 dated 16.07.2019 amounting to Rs.9,40,000/- with opposite party No.1, the same are reproduced as under:-

‘9.     That the complainant has presented the cheque bearing no.624247 dated 16.7.2019 amounting to Rs.9,40,000/- and at the time of presenting the said cheque the complainant also filled the deposit in slip which was duly received by the opposite party no.1 on 16.7.2019 and on the said deposit slip the cheque no.624289 can be seen with naked eye.’

Para No.9 of the affidavit Ex. CA of complainant Jaspreet Singh reads as under:-

‘9.     That the deponent has presented the cheque bearing no.624247 dated 16.7.2019 amounting to Rs.9,40,000/- and at the time of presenting the said cheque the deponent also filled the deposit in slip which was duly received by the opposite party no.1 on 16.7.2019 and on the said deposit slip the cheque no.624289 can be seen with naked eye.’

Moreover, para no.9 of the on merits of written statement, reads as under:-

‘9.     Para No.9 is admitted that the complainant has presented the cheque bearing No.624247 dated 16.7.2019 amounting to Rs.9,40,000/- at the time of presenting the said cheque the complainant also filled the deposit slip which was duly received by the opposite party No.1on 16.7.2019 and on the said deposit slip the cheque No.624289 can be seen with the naked eye and service of the notice and its reply but rest of the para is denied and wrong.’

Further para No.9 of the reply on merits in rejoinder submitted by the complainant reads as under:-

‘9.     That para no.9 of the reply on merits is wrong and denied and averments made in para no.9 of the complaint by the complainant are true and correct which are hereby reiterated. It is submitted that the complainant got served a legal notice dated 1.8.2019 which was duly replied on 13.8.2019 in which the opposite parties denied the presentation of cheque no.624289 dated 16.07.2019 and in this regard Jagjit Singh of Punjab Enterprises sworn an affidavit wherein he admitted that he issued a cheque bearing no.624289 for the sum of Rs.9,40,000/- in order to discharge his legal liability or debt towards the complainant.’

Perusal of the aforesaid pleadings of the complainant shows that his pleadings with regard to the presentation of a particular cheque was self contradictory. He had an opportunity to explain the admission made by him in para No.9 of the complaint and affidavit in his rejoinder but instead he again reiterated the same admission taken in the complaint as well as affidavit Ex. CA.

9.                The complainant has solely relying upon the photocopy of the cheque Ex. C1 clicked by complainant himself and the pay-in slip for proving the presentation of the cheque while opposite party No.1 is relying upon Ex. R1 cheque, Ex. R2 memo, Ex. R3 pay in slip, Ex. R8 copy of cheque referred and returned register to disprove the claim of the complainant. A closure scrutiny of both the cheques i.e. Ex. C1 and Ex. R1, both pay in slips Ex. C2 and Ex. R3 shows that there are striking similarities in the handwriting as in the body parts of the cheques and pay in slips are suggestive of common authorship of the documents. Mere production of the pay in slip Ex. C2 itself  is not sufficient to prove the alleged loss of the cheque No.624289 bythe opposite party.

10.              It transpires from the close scrutiny of the pleadings, affidavits and documents shows that two cheques No.624289 and 624247 if even date 16.07.2019 were issued and were presented for their encashment on the same day before opposite party No.1. It is difficult to comprehend that a businessman i.e. Jagjit Singh, Proprietor of M/s. Punjab Enterprises would issue two cheques of the same amount i.e. Rs.9,40,000/- each of even date totaling amount of Rs.18,80,000/-  in order to discharge the antecedent liability of Rs.9,40,000/-. It may also be noticed that both the drawer and drawee are maintaining their respective accounts in the same branch and clearance of cheque was to take place within the bank itself. The complainant in para No.9 of the rejoinder has specifically mentioned that Jagjit Singh, Proprietor of M/s. Punjab Enterprises has sworn an affidavit wherein he has admitted that he has issued a cheque bearing No.624289 for a sum of Rs.9,40,000/- in order to discharge his legal liability or debt towards the complainant. No such affidavit has been produced on record by the complainant to substantiate his claim. The complainant has not adduced any documentary evidence to show that when and under what circumstances, the previous liability of Rs.9,40,000/- was created or the said amount was advanced to M/s. Punjab Enterprises.  Surprisingly, the complainant has chosen not to implead either Jagjit Singh or M/s. Punjab Enterprises as a party to the present complaint. This Commission is of the view that the presence of Jagjit Singh being proprietor of M/s. Punjab Enterprises was essential for complete and effective adjudication of the matter in controversy.

11.              From the facts and circumstances, it is borne from the record that after becoming aware of the dishonour of the cheque, it is the complainant who did not visit the branch to receive the dishonoured cheque and memo on the alleged threat perception of hurt and humiliation. Even the complainant did not lodge any complaint to the police or civil or superior bank officials with regard to alleged mis-conduct of staff of opposite party No.1.  This fact has been strongly denied by opposite party No.1. Perusal of legal notice dated 01.08.2019 of the complainant Ex. C3, reply of opposite party No.1 dated 13.08.2019 Ex. R5 and another representation dated 05.09.2019 clearly shows that it is the complainant who did not collect dishonoured cheque and the memo. Had the complainant collected the same, he could easily enforced his legal right civil and criminal against Jagjit Singh or the firm M/s. Punjab Enterprises. As such, the complainant has failed to discharge his initial burden of proving deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

12.              In this regard, reference can be made to SGS India Ltd. Vs Dolphin International Ltd. in Civil Appeal No.5759 of 2009 decided on 06.10.2021 (LL 2021 SC 544) by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India whereby it has been held as under:-

’19.  The onus of proof of deficiency in service is on the complainant in the complaints under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is the complainant who had approached the Commission, therefore, without any proof of deficiency, the opposite party cannot be held responsible for deficiency in service.

In the above cited case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has placed reliance on its own judgment reported as Ravneet Singh Bagga v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines & Anr. whereby it has been held that the burden of proving the deficiency in service is upon the person who alleges it. “6. The deficiency in service cannot be alleged without attributing fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service. The burden of proving the deficiency in service is upon the person who alleges it. The complainant has, on facts, been found to have not established any wilful fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the service of the respondent.”

‘20. This Court in a Judgment reported as Indigo Airlines v. Kalpana Rani Debbarma & Ors. (LL 2021 SC 544) held the initial onus to substantiate the factum of deficiency in service committed by the opposite party was primarily on the complaint. This Court held as under:-

“28. In our opinion, the approach of the Consumer Fora is in complete disregard of the principles of pleadings and burden of proof. First, the material facts constituting deficiency in service are blissfully absent in the complaint as filed. Second, the initial onus to substantiate the factum of deficiency in service committed by the ground staff of the Airlines at the airport after issuing boarding passes was primarily on the respondents. That has not been discharged by them. The Consumer Fora, however, went on to unjustly shift the onus on the appellants because of their failure to produce any evidence. In law, the burden of proof would shift on the appellants only after the respondents/complainants had discharged their initial burden in establishing the factum of deficiency in service.”

In the given facts and circumstances, the complainant has failed to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties by any cogent and convincing evidence.

13.              There is another aspect in this case. During the course of proceedings, vide order  12.01.2023 of this Commission, the opposite parties through their counsel were directed to produce the documents i.e. original cheque Ex. R1, original memo Ex. R2, original deposit voucher Ex. R3 and register Ex. R8 being necessary documents and in pursuance of which Mr. Harsimran Singh Deol, Jr. Associate, SBI Maloud, Ludhiana  appeared and he suffered statement on 25.01.2023 which is reproduced as under:-

‘Stated that I have produced the original cheque No.624247, copy of which is Ex. R1. The original cheque bears a stamp in the name of Sunil Kumar 7121520 and it is initialed. Ex. R1 is the photocopy of the original. I have brought the original memo and Ex. r2 is photocopy of the original memo. I have brought the original voucher dated 16.7.2019, and photocopy of the same is Ex. R3 which is correct as per the record produced by me. As per the said voucher, it pertains to cheque no.624247. I have brought the cheque return register original. At serial no.131 has overwriting with regard to the last two digits of cheque number. Ex. R8 is the correct copy of page number 11 of the register brought by me which contains the relevant entry. After the page 12, the next page starts page number 78 onwards which is also printed.’

14.              The conjoint scrutiny of the statement and the documents referred in the statement, prima facie reveals the falsification and tempering of record which requires deeper probe by the superior officials of the opposite party bank. The opposite parties are directed to hold a fact finding inquiry in order to ascertain the motive under what circumstances these anomalies, discrepancies, inconsistency, tempering and removal of pages of official register have occurred. Opposite party No.2 is directed to conduct departmental inquiry and intimate this Commission regarding the outcome of the inquiry within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of order.

15.              As a result of above discussion, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

16.              Due to huge pendency of cases, the complaint could not be decided within statutory period.

 

(Monika Bhagat)          (Jaswinder Singh)                      (Sanjeev Batra)                          Member                            Member                                       President         

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:06.02.2023.

Gobind Ram.

 

 

Jaspreet Singh Vs State Bank of India                                      CC/19/508

Present:       Sh. D.K. Sharma, Advocate counsel for the complainant.

                   Sh. Rajeev abhi, Advocate counsel for the OP1.

                   Complaint against OP2 and OP3 not admitted vide order dated                             15.11.2019.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

(Monika Bhagat)          (Jaswinder Singh)                      (Sanjeev Batra)                       Member                     Member                                       President         

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:06.02.2023.

Gobind Ram.