Punjab

Sangrur

CC/649/2021

Priyanka Goyal - Complainant(s)

Versus

State Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Sandip Kumar Goyal

30 Jul 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .

 

                                                                        Complaint No. 649

 Instituted on:   20.05.2021

                                                                        Decided on:     30.07.2024

 

Priyanka Goyal wife of Bhupesh Kumar, resident of Ward No.3, Moonak, Tehsil Moonak, Distt. Sangrur.

                                                         …. Complainant.     

                                                 Versus

1.             State Bank of India, Main Market, Moonak, Tehsil Moonak, District Sangrur, through its Branch Manager 148033.

2.             State Bank of India,  Corporate Centre, State Bank Bhawan, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai through its Chairman 300021.

3.             State Bank of India, Region-III, Regional Business Office, Patiala through its Regional Manager 137001.

4.             Punjab and Sind Bank, Moonak, Tehsil Moonak, District Sangrur through its Branch Manager.

5.             Punjab and Sind Bank, through its Head Office, 5th Floor, Bank House, Rajendera Place, New Delhi 110008 through its Nodal Officer.

                                                        ..Opposite parties.

 

For the complainant    :       Shri S.K.Goyal, Adv.

For Opp.party 1         :        Shri Anil Kumar Singla, Adv.

For Opp.party 4         :        Shri Sonu Singla, Adv.

For Opp.party2,3&5  :        Exparte.

 

Quorum                                           

Jot Naranjan Singh Gill, President

Sarita Garg, Member

                        Kanwaljeet Singh, Member

ORDER

JOT NARANJAN SINGH GILL, PRESIDENT.

 

1.             Complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties on the ground that complainant is having a saving bank account with the OP number 4 bearing number 14341000001926. Further case of complainant is that the complainant issued a cheque bearing number 000005 dated 05.04.2021 to M/s.Bushera Karyana Store, Patran Road, Moonak for Rs.10,000/- and the said firm presented the cheque to his banker i.e. OP number 1 on 5.4.2021 and the said cheque was dishonoured by OP number 1 vide memo dated 8.4.2021 due to the reason “item listed twise”.  Further case of complainant is that after dishonour of the cheque, an amount of Rs.147.50 was deducted from the account of complainant being cheque dishonour charges. Further case of complainant is that the complainant requested OP number 4 to refund the said amount of Rs.147.50 being wrongly charged even without any fault of the complainant, then they said it is due to negligence of OP number 1 to present cheque twise, as such complainant requested OP number 1 to refund the said amount of Rs.147.50 but they flatly refused to do so. Thus, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OP number 1 be directed either to refund the amount of Rs.147.50 and further to pay compensation and litigation expenses.

2.             In reply filed by OP number 1, legal objections are taken up on the ground that the complainant has no locus standi and cause of action to file the present complaint, that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form, that the complainant has not come to this Commission with clean hands and that the complaint is wrong, false, bad, vague and vexatious to the knowledge of the complainant. On merits, it is admitted that the amount of Rs.147.50 was deducted and the same has already been refunded to the party. The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied and lastly prayed that the complaint be dismissed with special costs.

3.             Opposite party number 4 filed written reply by taking legal objections on the ground that the complainant is not a consumer and the complaint is not maintainable. The complainant has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present complaint. The complainant has not come to this Commission with clean hands. The complainant has dragged the opposite party into unnecessary litigation. This Commission has got no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint. On merits, it is admitted that an amount of Rs.147.50 was deducted from the account of the complainant being cheque dishonoured charges as per the instructions of the Reserve Bank of India and after the request of the complainant regarding refund of the amount of Rs.147.50, the opposite party number 4 reversed the amount of Rs.147.50 in the account of the complainant. The other allegations of the complainant are denied and prayed that the complaint be dismissed with costs.

4.             Record shows that the OP number 2,3 and 5 did not appear despite service, as such they were proceeded against exparte on 28.09.2021.

5.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 self attested affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of passbook, Ex.C-3 copy of cheque, Ex.C-4 copy of memo and closed evidence.  The learned counsel for OP number 1 has produced Ex.OP1/1 affidavit and closed evidence. The learned counsel for OP number 4 has produced Ex.OP4/1 affidavit, Ex.OP4/2 copy of statement of account and closed evidence.

6.             We have gone through the pleadings put in by  the parties along with their supporting documents with their valuable assistance. 

7.             It is not in dispute that the complainant is having a saving bank account in question with OP number 4 i.e. Punjab and Sind Bank, Moonak Branch and it is also not in dispute that the complainant issued a cheque bearing number 000005 dated 05.04.2021 to M/s.Bushera Karyana Store, Moonak for Rs.10,000/- and the said firm presented the cheque to OP number 1 for encashment, but the grievance of complainant is that an amount of Rs.147.50 was wrongly debited to the account of the complainant on 08.04.2021, which is evident from the copy of statement of account ExC-2 and when the complainant filed the present complaint, then the OPs reversed the said amount of Rs.147.50 to the account of complainant on 13.08.2021.  Though all these facts are admitted by the opposite parties that an amount of Rs.147.50 was wrongly deducted and later on credited in the account of complainant as mentioned above.  Now, the fact remains that without any rhyme or reason the complainant had to file the present complaint to get the amount of Rs.147.50 reversed from the OP number 4. Now, it is  on record that OP number 4 refunded to the complainant the amount of Rs.147.50 on 13.08.2021 as is evident from the copy of statement Ex.OP4/2 during pendency of the present complaint. We may further  mention that it is own case of complainant that the cheque in question was dishonoured by OP number 1 vide memo dated 8.4.2021 due to the reason “Item Listed Twise” which is evident from the copy of return memo report Ex.C-4. Accordingly, we find that the complainant was unnecessarily forced to file the present complaint to get refund of the disputed amount of Rs.147.50 and as such, it is a proved case of deficiency in service on the part of the OP number 1.

8.             Accordingly, in view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct OP number 1 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5000/- in lieu of consolidated amount of compensation and litigation expenses. This order be complied with within a period of sixty days of receipt of copy of this order.

9.             The complaint could not be decided within the statutory time period due to heavy pendency of cases.

10.            Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance. 

                        Pronounced.

 

                July 30, 2024.

 

           (Kanwaljeet Singh)  (Sarita Garg) (Jot Naranjan Singh Gill)

                  Member               Member                   President