Punjab

Patiala

CC/19/241

M/s Kaka Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

State Bank Of Patiala - Opp.Party(s)

Sh Mohit Kansal

01 Mar 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/ 241/2019
Date of Institution	:	4.7.2019
Date of Decision	:	1.3.2023

 

M/s Kaka Ram Om Parkash, Both No.13, Phase-1, Opposite State Bank of India, New Grain Market, Sirhind Road, Patiala through its Prop. Om Parkash S/o Kaka Ram.

 

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1. State Bank of India (Earlier State Bank of Patiala) Branch Industrial Estate, New Grain Market, Patiala, through its Branch Manager.

 

2. State Bank of India (Earlier State Bank of Patiala)

Regional Office: 5^th Floor, Sheranwala Gate, The Mall, Patiala through its Regional Manager.

 

3. State Bank of India (Earlier State Bank of Patiala)

Local Head Office: Sector 17, Chandigarh, through its General Manager.

 

…………Opposite Parties

 

Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act

 

QUORUM

                                      Hon’ble Mr.S.K.Aggarwal, President

                                      Hon’ble Mr.G.S.Nagi, Member        

 

 

PRESENT:                   Sh.Mohit Kansal, counsel for complainant.

                             Sh.Hemant Nanda, counsel for OPs.         

 ORDER                                          

1. The instant complaint is filed by M/s Kaka Ram Om Parkash through its Prop. Om Parkash S/o Kaka Ram (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against State Bank of India (Earlier State Bank of Patiala) (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s) under the Consumer Protection Act (for short the Act).
2. The averments of the complainant are as follows:

That the complainant is running a shop of commission agent under the name and style of M/s Kaka Ram Om Parkash at the aforesaid address. He is maintaining the bank account No.65277980126 with OP No.1 .

That Harvinder Singh S/o Harnek Singh of village Daun Khurad Boharpur Janharia, Tehsil & District Patiala was customer of the complainant and used to sell his crops from time to time through him for which ledger account was maintained by the complainant. On 21.11.2017 said Harvinder Singh approached complainant to clear his balance. After settling the account, an amount of Rs.5,10,000/- approx. was outstanding against him. To clear his liability and outstanding, Harvinder Singh issued cheque No.654441 dated 22.11.2017 for Rs.5,00,000/- drawn on State Bank of Patiala, as lump sum settlement amount, in favour of complainant from his bank account No.MSB 65061245845 being maintained with State Bank of Patiala. (now merged in State Bank of India) After issuance of cheque by Harvinder Singh, complainant issued NO DUE CERTIFICATE to Harvinder Singh. Thereafter complainant presented cheque with its banker for encashment. Due to rush in early morning in the bank, concerned official namely Kanchan Bajaj asked the complainant to leave the cheque with her. She had also checked balance in the account of Harvinder Singh and told that there are sufficient funds in the account of Harvinder Singh. She assured that cheque will be honoured within some hours and issued a Que No.Q906. Accordingly complainant left the cheque on the counter and went back to his shop.

On 31.3.2018 at the time of maintaining his firm account/ledger, complainant found difference in the bank account and the ledger, as cheque of Harvinder Singh has not been encashed by the bank despite of there being sufficient fund in his account. Complainant immediately visited OP No.1 to know as to why cheque has not been encashed. Bank official stated that check has been duly encashed as per their record and also handed over photocopy of the cheque showing back side of the cheque that the cheque is credited. Photo copy of said cheque shows that said cheque was account payee and also bears writing on the backside of cheque to the effect that “pay A/c Credit” and also bears initial / signatures of said official and duly numbered as Q906 dated 22.11.2017.From this, it revealed that employee of OP No.1 was having hand in gloves with Harvinder Singh and due to this said official failed to credit the amount in account of complainant and even failed to inform the complainant that the amount has not been credited in his account. When complainant requested Harvinder Singh and apprised him about the non-encashment of cheque and expiry of date of cheque, he flatly refused to give the amount of Rs.5,00,000/-. Thus there is a major fault on the part of the bank, due to which, complainant suffered big financial loss. Finding no other alternative complainant sent legal notice dated 4.6.2019 to the OPs but the OPs neither returned the amount nor did the needful. There is thus deficiency in service and also unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs, which caused mental agony and harassment to the complainant. Consequently, prayer has, then, been made for acceptance of the complaint.

3. Upon notice, OPs appeared through counsel and filed written statement having taken various preliminary objections. It is pleaded that there was zero balance in the account of Mr.Harvinder Singh having account no.65061245845 on 21.11.2017.When the amount of Rs.5lakh got credited to the account of Sh.Harvinder Singh on 22.11.2017 vide cheque No.578772, at that particular time, minimum balance charges amounting to Rs.92.26 were outstanding, which got debited automatically by the system, the moment amount was credited in SB A/c of Sh.Harvinder Singh. Resultantly, the effective balance on 22.11.2017 was Rs.4,99,907.74 which was less than the amount of cheque in question. Hence the said cheque could not be cleared.
4. On merits, it is submitted that the said cheque was returned to the complainant over the counter there being no sufficient cleared balance in account of Harvinder Singh.  It is utmost surprising that complainant has not checked his account from 22.11.2017 to 31.3.2018.Complainant issued so many cheques  from his account and it is very much clear that the complainant had full knowledge of the balance in their account and had checked their account for clearance of those cheques issued by the complainant from time to time. Hence, complainant has cooked up a false and frivolous story after a gap of 4 months. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. After denying all other averments made in the complaint, OPs prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
5. To prove his case, ld. counsel for complainant furnished Ex.CA affidavit of Om Parkash alongwith  documents, Ex.C1 copy of bank statement of complainant, Ex.C2 copy of ledger account maintained by the complainant of his customer Harvinder Singh, Ex.C3 copy of cheque dated 22.11.2017, issued in favour of the complainant, Ex.C3 copy of NDC, Ex.C5 copy of bank statement of Harvinder Singh showing sufficient balance, Ex.C6 copy of legal notice dated 4.6.2019,Exs.C7 to C9 postal receipts dated 4.6.2019,Ex.C10 copy of reply to legal notice dated 9.7.2019 and closed the evidence.
6. On the other hand, Sh.Nissar Garg, Barnch Manager, SBI for OPs No.1to3 has furnished his affidavit, Ex.OPA alongwith document, Ex.OP1. On 20.7.2021, ld. counsel closed evidence of OPs.
7. We have heard ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
8. There is no dispute to the fact that the complainant had deposited a cheque bearing No.654441 dated 22.11.2017, for Rs.five lacs, drawn on State Bank of Patiala, Ex.C3.The said cheque was issued by one Harvinder Singh, who was having an account No.MSB 65061245845 with State Bank of Patiala Industrial Branch, New Grain Market, Patiala. Said Harvinder Singh was the customer of the complainant and used to sell his crops through the firm of the complainant and he had issued the said cheque to clear his outstanding balance to the firm of the complainant. On the basis of the above said cheque “No due certificate’ was issued by the complainant to Harvinder Singh on 21.11.2017, Ex.C4. Complainant presented the said cheque in the aforesaid branch of the OPs on 22.11.2017. Complainant has alleged that there were sufficient funds in the account of Harvinder Singh at the time of presenting the said cheque which was confirmed by the official of the OPs and queue No.Q906 was allotted to the cheque. However, on 31.3.2018, complainant observed that there was difference in the his bank account statement and ledger account maintained by him to the tune of Rs.5 lacs as the cheque  of Rs.5lac issued by Harvinder Singh, presented to the bank on 22.11.2017 has not been encashed and credited to his account. The complainant has further stated that the cheque was never returned to him. As such there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs on the following grounds;

1. The cheque presented to the bank was duly marked for clearance and queue Q906 was allotted and also on the backside of the cheque remarks to the fact that Pay Account Credit has been appended but the payment was not credited to the account of the complainant.
2. Since the payment against the cheque was not credited to the account of the complainant, the cheque should have been returned to him, so that he could either present the cheque again for clearance or initiate other legal proceedings and file a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, or could present the cheque for clearance.

9. Legal notice, Ex.C6 was also served upon the OPs on 4.6.2019. However, the OPs failed to accept the averments of the complainant and refused to refund the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to the complainant.
10. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the OPs has relied upon the bank account statement, Ex.OP1 of Harvinder Singh, as per which the balance in the account of Harvinder Singh was zero on 22.11.2017 and  an amount of Rs.5lac was transferred to his account against cheque No.578772 on 22.11.2017. Since the balance in the account of Harvinder Singh was zero, as such on receipt of said amount of Rs.5lacs an amount of Rs.92.26/- and Rs.59/- were first deducted from his account leading to net balance of Rs.499907/- in his account. As such the cheque of Rs.5lacs presented by the complainant could not be encashed as the balance in the account of Harvinder Singh( person issuing the cheque) was less than Rs.5,00,000/-.
11. From the discussion as above, it transpires that cheque in dispute was not encashed by the OPs as there were insufficient funds in the account of Harvinder Singh. However, the OPs were deficient in their services on account of non returning the disputed cheque in original to the complainant. Had the OPs returned the cheque to the complainant on the same day, he would have been well within his  right to present the cheque again to the bank for clearance as the balance in the account of Harvinder Singh was 5,30,848/- on 8.12.2017 and was more than Rs.5lacs from 8.12.2017 to 21.12.2017.
12. Ld. counsel for the complainant has rightly argued that had the cheque been returned to the complainant he would have deposited some amount from his own pocket into the account of Harvinder Singh to make up the balance of more than Rs.5lacs in the account and would have presented the cheque for clearance. Moreover, the OPs were duty bound to return the cheque to the complainant as per banking guidelines.
13. We also find that complainant was also negligent to the extent that he was not aware of the clearance of the cheque and issued No Due Certificate to Harvinder Singh without checking his proper account. It was also incumbent upon the complainant to monitor his account regularly. In fact the complainant came to know about the non clearance of the cheque only on 31.3.2018 i.e. after a period of almost 4 months from the date of presentation of cheque on 22.11.2017.
14. Thus, keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case and striking the balance between the interests of the parties, it is deemed appropriate to allow the complaint partly.Accordingly, all the OPs jointly and severally are directed  as follows:

1. To pay Rs.2,50,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @6% per annum from the date of presentation of cheque i.e. 22.11.2017 within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order failing which OPs would be liable to pay interest on the said amount @9% per annum till realization.
2. To pay Rs.25,000/-  on account of deficiency in service on their part, within the prescribed period.

15.           The instant complaint could not be disposed of within stipulated period due to Covid protocol and for want of Quorum for long time.
85109252238716.  
85109252238717.  

                                              G.S.Nagi                           S.K.AGGARWAL

                                              Member                          President