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

============

M/s Aaj Constructions & Builders, Plot No. 710, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh, through its Partner Sh. Yuvpreet Singh.

                   ---Complainants

Vs

State Bank of Patiala, SCO No. 274, Sector 32-D, Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager.

---- Opposite Party

BEFORE:    SH.LAKSHMAN SHARMA              PRESIDENT

MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA               MEMBER

           SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU        MEMBER

Argued By:    None for Complainant.

Sh. Kuldip Singh, Counsel for Opposite Party.

PER MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER

1.        The Complainant had received a Cheque of Rs.12,00,000/- issued by the Anandmayi Ma Cooperative Group Housing Society Limited, to be collected from Sector 38 Branch of the Opposite Party. The Complainant deposited the said Cheque with the Opposite Party. The amount was credited to the current account of the Complainant on 20.05.2011. Subsequently, the Complainant was surprised to receive a letter dated 24.05.2011 from the Opposite Party wherein it was informed that a hold had been marked on the Complainant’s account for Rs.12,00,000/- due to a complaint about a dispute between the Complainant and the issuing party.

          The Complainant has stated that meanwhile certain cheques had been issued in favour of third parties which could be dishonoured due to the hold. The Complainant, thus, issued a letter to the Opposite Party warning them that the Opposite Party would be responsible in case the cheques already issued were returned unpaid. Details of cheques issued by the Complainant on 21.05.2011 and 22.05.2011 have been given in Para 7 (Pg.3) of the complaint. The Complainant has stated that all the cheques were duly presented for payment and were dishonoured. It has also alleged that the wrongful dishonour of the cheques by the Opposite Party has caused irremediable injuries and loss to their reputation and credibility.

          The Complainant also issued a legal notice dated July, 2011 to the Opposite Party regarding the hold on the account. As the Bank did not comply, the Complainant has filed this complaint alleging that the action of the Opposite Party is against banking norms and hence, the Opposite Party is liable for compensation towards business loss. The Complainant has prayed for compensation of Rs.19,00,000/- along with litigation charges.  

2.        After admission of the complaint, notice was sent to the Opposite Party.

3.        Opposite Party in reply has taken the preliminary objection that Anandmayi Ma Cooperative Group Housing Society Limited is a necessary party to the dispute and has not been impleaded by the Complainant.  

          On merits, the Opposite Party has submitted that the amount of Rs.12,00,000/- was credited to the account of the Complainant on receipt of Cheque, but a hold was marked on the said amount as per the complaint of Sh. Som Dutt Goyal, President of the Anandmayi Ma Cooperative Group Housing Society Limited, who had issued the cheque in question in favour of the Complainant. The Complainant was informed accordingly on 24.05.2011. Opposite Party has submitted that the person who had issued the Cheque had made a complaint that the Complainant had taken an amount of Rs.12,00,000/- instead of Rs.2,00,000/- by manipulating the amount on the cheque on 20.05.2011 (copy of Complaint Annexure R-1). In the situation, the Opposite Party had no option, but to verify/ investigate the complaint and withhold the amount credited in the account.

          A complaint in this regard had also been lodged with the Chandigarh Police. Subsequently, the matter was compromised between the parties as per Annexure R-2 and R-3, intimation of which was received by the Opposite Party from the drawer of the Cheque, hence the Bank thereafter, removed the hold. The bank has pleaded that there is no breach of trust on their part as the written complaint had to be investigated. The Opposite Party has also pleaded that some cheques issued by the Complainant against the amount lying in the account over and above Rs.12,00,000/- were honoured. While submitted that there was no malafide intention but an act to save public money of which the Opposite Party is a custodian, Opposite Party has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.        Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5.        As the Complainant failed to appear on the last date of hearing i.e. 16.08.2012, the arguments of the counsel for the Opposite Party were heard. Hence, we have proceeded to dispose of the present complaint on merits under Rule 4(8) of the Chandigarh Consumer Protection Rules, 1987, read with Section 13(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date), vide order dated 16.08.2012.

6.        We have heard the learned counsel for the Opposite Party and have perused the record.

7.        The controversy between the parties is with regard to dishonour of cheques issued by the Complainant due to a hold placed on the account of the Complainant for Rs.12,00,000/-. A complaint lodged with the SSP, U.T. Chandigarh is part of the record, wherein it has been alleged that against a cheque for Rs.2,00,000/- the Complainant had withdrawn Rs.12,00,000/-. The dispute and complaint was eventually amicably settled between the Complainant and Anandmayi Ma Cooperative Group Housing Society Limited, as per settlement dated 28.06.2011 (Annexure R-3). The hold on the account was thereafter released.

8.        The Bank is a custodian of public money and it is expected that care is taken by the Bank to protect the interests of its customers in case of any complaints/ allegations of cheating or fraud about money transactions in particular. The Bank in the instant case has done nothing else. It has tried to safeguard the interest of its customers. As such, the allegations made by the Complainant to our mind are not sustainable. Otherwise also, the Complainant has failed to satisfy this Forum about the loss or damage caused to it due to the hold on the account. If the Complainant was so agitated about the cheques issued to various parties, it could have deposited the required amount of the cheques issued from the account into the account, so that the cheques could be honoured. Timely intimation had been received from the Bank on 24.05.2011. The cheques were dishonoured on or after 27.05.2011. The Bank had not put a hold on the account, but on the amount of Rs.12,00,000/- only. Hence, to our mind, there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice by the Bank in acting cautiously with public money. The complaint is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

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

Announced

22^nd August, 2012.                                           

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

 (MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

Sd/-

 (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER