Punjab

Rupnagar

RBT/CC/18/27

Nirdosh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

State Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

Dalip Saggi adv

25 Nov 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CAMP COURT AT LUDHIANA

 

                                                  RBT/Consumer Complaint No. 27 of 10.1.2018

                                                  Date of Decision: 25.11.2022

 

 

Nirdosh Kumar Singla, HUF 205-E, Kitchlu Nagar, Ludhiana 

                                                                                          ……Complainant

                                                            Versus

 

1. State Bank of India, Kitchlu Nagar Branch, Ludhiana through its Branch Manager
2. State Bank of India, Regional Business Office, Punjab, SCO 103-108 Sector 17B, Chandigarh through its Regional Manager
3. State Bank of India (Head Office 18-19, Devdas Kamlreg Block, Snergy Building, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East Mumbai-40051, through its Chairman Cum Managing Director 

                                                                                              ….Opposite Parties

Complaint under Consumer Protection Act

 

QUORUM:-

                    SH. RANJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

                    SMT. RANVIR KAUR, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY:-

          Sh. Dalip Saggi, Adv. For complainant

          Sh. Anil Kumar Saggar, Adv. For Ops

 

ORDER:-

SH. RANJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

          The present order of ours will dispose of the above complaint received by way of transfer from District Consumer Commission, Ludhiana, filed under Consumer Protection Act, by the complainant against the opposite parties on the ground that the complainant had a fixed deposit of Rs.10,00,000/- only with the bank and against the said fixed deposit, he had been sanctioned on overdraft limit against the said account. The complainant was having sufficient funds in his account as on 31.8.2017, since he had not availed the complete amount of over draft sanctioned to him and he had issued one cheque bearing No.078512 dated 12.09.2017 in favour of Ms. Rashmi Handa for a sum of Rs.2,38,000/- which was presented by drawer for collection of the proceedings in clearing through bank of baroda, tagore nagar, Ludhiana brach on 13.09.2017. To the great surprise and shock of the complainant, the OP No.1 branch did not honor the said cheques and returned the same as unpaid with the remarks funds insuffient. Vide memo dated 13.09.2017. It is further stated that it requires to be highlighted that as on 31.8.2017, the complainant was having a debit balance of Rs.3,82,639.27 and as per sanctioned limit, the complainant could have utilized the balance amount of the limit sanctioned and the balance limit was sufficient to clear the cheque issued by the complainant.. But the dealing officials of the bank did not take into consideration the sanctioned limit in favour of the complainant and did not honor the cheque issued by the complainant, which caused a very embarrassing situation for the complainant in the eyes of drawer of the cheque. The conduct of the bank officials amounts deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, for which the complainant is entitled to initiate action against the bank for dishonor of the cheque, despite having the sufficient balance. The dealing officials of the bank made a deduction of Rs.590/- on account of charges for the return of the cheque. The complainant brought this lapse on the part of the bank officials through email and also lodged complaints with the customer care cell on toll free number provided for the same, but the complaints were not resolved and the complainant was not provided an response to the said complaint. The complainant came to know that the said complaints have been arbitrarily and without any justification have been closed, which is again an unfair trade practice on the part of the concerned officials. It may not be out of point to mention here that the complainant is maintaining a saving bank account as Nirdosh Singla HUF. Instead of redressing the grievance of the complainant and returning/re-imbursing the cheque returning charges back to the complainant, the bank made another deduction of Rs.590/- from the saving bank account of Nirdosh Singla HUF on 16.9.2017 stating to be reversing of interest paid during the previous year on the saving account. Thus, the complainant was burdened with sum of Rs.590/- on two counts, which is very much unjustified. When the complainant made enquires on this count from the bank, he was informed that the same has been done in accordance with the instructions circulated by the bank. It is further stated that on account of the dishonor of cheque, despite the fact that the complainant did not avail the entire over draft limited against the Fixed Deposit lying with the bank, the complainant suffered loss of reputation in the eyes of his clients and his goodwill in the social circles and caused mental harassment on account of illegal and unjustified acts of omission and commission on the part of the bank, which cannot be calculated in term of money. Yet the complainant claims compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- only from the bank along with unconditional written apology for the dishonor of cheque along with the amount of deductions made on two counts from the accounts of the complainant.     Thus, alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant sought the following reliefs against the OPs:-

1. To refund of the cheque dishonor charges and amount of interest which was reversed from the saving account of the complainant in addition to the amount of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- only for mental harassment, agony and sufferings of the complainant on account of acts of omission and commission on the part of the Ops.
2. Any other relief to which the Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice.

2. In reply, the OP have filed written version taking preliminary objections; that the complaint is not maintainable; thatthe complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint; that the complainant is estopped by his act and conduct from filing the complaint; that the complainant has not come before this Commission with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts; that this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint. On merits, it is stated that the complainant is maintaining saving account as well as over draft account with the Ops. The Ops many times requested the complainant orally to update its account again submitted requisite documents for the purpose of OD account. Inspite of repeated reminders the complainant failed to update its bank account and failed to submit the documents as required. Further, the complainant assured the Ops to complete all required formalities as and when required and given the consent in writing and further complainant also executed security documents in favour of the Ops in this regard. Due to non compliance of the agreement signed by the complainant and non providing documents, the drawing power of the complainant become Nil automatically as per norms of the bank and prevailing system of the bank. The complainant himself aware about drawing power Nil and he intentionally and willfully has not renewal his account. The complainant was within his knowledge and aware of the fact that drawing power Nil and he has no power of withdraw single penny from his account, so complainant should not have to issue cheque in favour of anyone from this account. As such, the complainant is entire responsible for its own act and Ops have no connection in this regard. Rest of allegations made by the complainant against the Ops are denied and prayed for dismissal the present complaint. 
3. The learned counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit along with documents in support of their version and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Ops has tendered documents and closed the evidence. 
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and OPs and have gone through the record file, carefully and minutely. 
5. From the perusal of the evidence placed on record by both the parties and have gone through the entire record of the file, we feel, that the complainant has failed to provide security documents to the Ops and due non compliance of the agreement signed by the complainant and non renewal documents, the drawing power of the complainant become Nil automatically as per norms of the bank and prevailing system of the bank. It is important to mention here that the complainant himself aware about drawing power Nil and he intentionally and willfully has not renewal his account. The complainant was within his knowledge and aware of the fact that drawing power Nil and he has no power to withdraw single penny from his account and the complainant should not have to issue cheque in favour anyone from this account. Dishonoring of the cheque is negligence on the part of the complainant. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled to any relief. 
6. In view of our above discussion, we dismiss the present complaint with no order as to cost. Free certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties, as per rules. The file be sent back to the District Consumer Commission, Ludhiana for consigning the same to the Record Room. 

Announced:

24.11.2022                                                              (RANJIT SINGH)

                                                                                PRESIDENT

 

 

 

                                                                                (RANVIR KAUR)

                                                                                MEMBER