Versus
- The Manager State Bank of India, Branch Dugri Road, Ludhiana.
- The Manager, State Bank of India, Fountain Chowk, Ludhiana.
…..Opposite parties
Complaint Under Section 35 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. Rupinder Singh, Advocate.
For OPs : Sh. Raju Chopra, Advocate.
ORDER
PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT
1. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts of the complaint are that the complainant firm had current account bearing No.31496242820 with opposite party No.1 and carrying regular transactions by maintaining sufficient balance. The complainant issued a cheque No.402013 dated 17.08.2021 for an amount of Rs.42,081/- drawn on opposite party No.1 branch in favour of M/s. Royal Manufacturing corporation, which was presented on 23.08.2021. The complainant stated that it was having sufficient balance of Rs.4,28,247.98 in his account while issuing the said cheque and there was an overdraft limit of Rs.11,00,000/- on the said current account. However, on presentation, the cheque was dishonoured vide memo dated 23.08.2021 with remarks “Funds Insufficient” by opposite party No.1 upon which the complainant approached opposite party No.1 and requested to rectify their mistake as he was having sufficient funds in his account to honour the cheque and also asked them to refund cheque bounce charges of Rs.590/- but they lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other. The complainant sent 2 registered letters on 28.08.2021 and 04.09.2021 but to no effect. The complainant further stated that establishment of the firm is since 13.12.1974 and proprietor of the firm is a senior citizen having aged about 84 years who made several requests to opposite party No.1 but the opposite parties did not pay any heed to the genuine request of the complainant. The act and conduct of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice which has caused mental tension, pain, agony, loss of business as well as reputation and goodwill of the complainant. The complainant served a legal notice dated 28.09.2021 which was posted on 29.09.2021 upon the opposite parties but no reply was received. Hence this complaint whereby the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to refund the bounce charges of Rs.590/- and to make written apology for their negligence and also to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation.
2. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and filed joint written statement by taking preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable, the complaint is an abuse of process of law, no cause of action arose to the complainant and this Commission has no jurisdiction etc. The opposite parties stated that the complainant is maintaining current account with opposite party No.1 with an OD limit of Rs.11,00,000/- and he has availed remaining amount of Rs.4,28,247.98 out of over draft limit out of over draft limit of Rs.11,00,000/- and he has already availed an OD limit of Rs.6,71,752.20. According to the opposite parties, the cheque in question was presented for clearance but due to technical fault in the system, inadvertently on 23.08.2021 the cheque was returned vide memo and the bank charged Rs.590/- as bounce charges from his account on 23.08.2021 and when the bank come to knowledge of this error the bank has immediately refunded a sum of Rs.590/- in account of the complainant on 30.09.2021 i.e. even before receipt of legal notice of the complainant.
On merits, the opposite parties reiterated the crux of averments made in the preliminary objections. The opposite parties have denied that there is any deficiency of service and have also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. 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, Ex. C2 is the copy of letter dated 28.08.2021, Ex. C3 is the copy of letter dated 04.09.2021, Ex. C4 is the copy of account statement, Ex. C5 is the copy of cheque returning memo, Ex,. C6 is the copy of legal notice dated 28.09.2021, Ex. C7 are the postal receipts and closed the evidence.
4. On the other hand, counsel for opposite parties tendered affidavit Ex. RA of Ms. Monika Ahluwalia, Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Dugri Road branch, Ludhiana along with documents Ex. R1 is the copy of account statement of the complainant and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the arguments of the counsel for the parties and also gone through the complaint, affidavit and annexed documents and written reply along with affidavit and documents produced on record by both the parties.
6. Admittedly, the complainant was holding a current account with the opposite parties and was maintaining sufficient balance of Rs.4,28,247.98 when he issued a cheque Ex. C1 bearing No.402013 dated 17.08.2021 of Rs.42,081/- in favour of M/s. Royal Manufacturing Corporation. Additionally, the complainant firm was entitled to over draft limit of Rs.11,00,000/-. The cheque was dishonoured on 23.08.2021 with the remarks “Funds Insufficient” when it was presented by the drawee of the cheque for its encashment. A sum of Rs.590/- was deducted on account of dishonouring of the cheque. The matter was immediately brought into notice of the opposite parties who were requested to refund the cheque bouncing charges. A letter dated 28.08.2021 Ex. C2 and its reminder dated 04.09.2021 Ex. C3 was sent but to no avail. The complainant was constrained to issue a legal notice dated 28.09.2021 Ex. C6 upon the opposite parties whereby the opposite parties were called upon to refund the bounce charges and to tender unconditional apology to the complainant on account of their negligence.
7. The opposite parties refunded the charges of Rs.590/- on 30.09.2021 to the complainant. The opposite parties tried to take shelter of some technical glitch due to which the cheque was dishonoured. However, on the face of it, the contentions of the opposite parties are devoid of any merits and substance. The complainant had been repeatedly requested orally as well as in writing to rectify the mistake but the officials of the opposite parties did not respond favourably. It took more than one month to make amends in their action without any justifiable cause or reason. Recently in case title N. Raghavender Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, CBI 2021 SC 765, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in its para No.62 has observed as under:-
“…….the banker is one who receives money to be drawn out again when the owner has occasion for it. Since the present case involves a conventional bank transaction, it may be further noted that in such situations, the customer is the lender and the bank is the borrower, the latter being under a super added obligation of honouring the customer’s cheques up to the amount of the money received and still in the banker’s hands. The money that a customer deposits in a bank is not held by the latter on trust for him. It becomes a part of the banker’s funds who is under a contractual obligation to pay the sum deposited by a customer to him on demand with the agreed rate of interest. Such a relationship between the customer and the Bank is one of a creditor and a debtor. The Bank is liable to pay money back to the customers when called upon…...”
8. The in action on the part of the officials of the opposite parties has not only caused mental agony, harassment to the complainant but the reputation and goodwill of the complainant firm also came under scanner in the estimation of public at large and particularly in business community. It has also made the complainant legally vulnerable. The drawee of the cheque was we within his right to initiate civil as well as criminal action against the complainant. As such, the act and conduct of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and they were negligent in rendering services to the complainant. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be just and appropriate if the opposite parties are directed to pay a composite compensation of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order, failing which complainant will be entitled to interest on these amounts @8% per annum from today onwards till payment.
9. As a sequel of above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed only to the extent that complainant is entitled for a composite costs of compensation for mental harassment and agony of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only). Payment of this amount be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order, failing which complainant will be entitled to interest on this amount @8% per annum from today onwards till payment. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.
10. 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:18.07.2023.
Gobind Ram.
Auto Links Vs The Manager SBI CC/21/548
Present: Sh. Rupinder Singh, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Raju Chopra, Advocate for OPs.
Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint is partly allowed only to the extent that complainant is entitled for a composite costs of compensation for mental harassment and agony of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only). Payment of this amount be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order, failing which complainant will be entitled to interest on this amount @8% per annum from today onwards till payment. 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:18.07.2023.
Gobind Ram.