| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PATIALA. Consumer Complaint No. 463 of 15.12.2017 Decided on: 1.9.2021 Sandeep Singh aged 29 years, son of Sh.Paramjit Singh, resident of 581, B/4, Arjan Nagar, Lower Mall, Patiala. …………...Complainant Versus - The Branch Manager, State Bank of Patiala, now merged in State Bank of India, Branch Sai Market, Patiala.
- Capital First Company Service Center, SCO 17, Opposite Amar Ashram, Near Hotel Polo Club, Lower Mall, Patiala 147001.
…………Opposite Parties Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act QUORUM Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President Dr.Harman Shergill Sullar, Member ARGUED BY Sh.P.S.Kahlon, counsel for complainant. Sh.Anand Puri, counsel for OP No.1. OP No.2 exparte. ORDER JASJIT SINGH BHINDER,PRESIDENT - This is the complaint filed by Sandeep Singh (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against State Bank of Patiala (SBI) (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s) under the Consumer Protection Act (for short the Act).
- Briefly the case of the complainant is that he is the holder of account No. 65099113529 with OP No.1 since 2015. It is averred that he purchased AC after availing loan facility from OP No.2 in the month of June,2017 and issued cheques in favour of OP No.2 for the clearance of EMI of Rs.3,000/-due date of which was fixed 5th of every month.
- It is averred that the complainant was having Rs.22.701/- in his saving account on 4.9.2017 and thereafter on 6.9.2017 he withdrew an amount of Rs.10,000/- having left behind Rs.12,701/- as balance in his said account. It is further averred that on 5.9.2017 the OP NO.2 presented the cheque for clearance of EMI of Rs.3000/- but the same was dishonoured on 6.9.2017 and Rs.590/-was debited from his account by OP No.1 and Rs.400/- by OP No.2 as fine . It is further averred that he immediately approached OP No.1 who assured that the amount debited as fine shall be sent back to his account. It is further averred that again on 11.9.2017 the cheque presented by OP No.2 was dishonoured even there was sufficient amount in his account and again amount of Rs.590/- was debited by OP No.1 and Rs.400/- by OP No.2 as fine. The complainant issued letter dated 16.9.2017 to OP No.1 for the solution of the problem and even sent e-mails to the Bank and OP No.2 also in this regard but to no effect. There is thus deficiency of service on the part of the OPs which caused monetary loss, mental pain, agony and harassment to the complainant. Hence this complaint with the prayer to accept the same by giving direction to the OPs to make the payment of Rs.1980/- alongwith interest; to pay Rs.50,000/-as compensation .
- Notice of the complaint was duly given to the OPs. OP No.1 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply whereas none appeared on behalf of OP No.2 and was thus accordingly proceeded against exparte.
- In the reply filed by OP no.1 preliminary objections have been raised to the extent that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint as the cause of action has arisen at Mumbai as the CCPC, Mumbai has referred the cheque to the drawer and OP No.1 has been impleaded unnecessarily ; that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint; that the complainant has not come to the Court with clean hands; that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint and that the present complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious and is liable to be dismissed.
- On merits, it is admitted that the complainant is maintaining saving account with OP No.1.It is submitted that the OP No.1 has not debited any amount from the account of the complainant and the same was debited by the system of the bank as the cheque was returned by CCPC, Mumbai. It is pleaded that the cheques in question were never presented for clearance at Patiala and the complainant is not entitled for any relief. After denying all other averments, the OP No.1 has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
- In support of the complaint complainant with his counsel has tendered his affidavit,Ex.CA alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C10 and closed the evidence.
- The ld. counsel for OP No.1 has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Sh.Sandeep Garg, Dy.Manager SBI alongwith documents Ex.OP1 and closed the evidence.
- We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
- The ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant has having account with the OP No.1 since 2015.The ld. counsel further argued that the complainant purchased AC for domestic use after taking loan from Capital First Company, Patiala.The ld. counsel further argued for clearance of EMI the complainant issued cheques of Rs.3000/- and on 4.9.2017 he was having an amount of Rs.22,701/- in his account. On 6.9.2017 he withdrew the amount of Rs.10,000/- and left with the balance of Rs.12,701/- in his account. The ld. counsel further argued that as per settled date of EMI the OP No.2 presented the cheque of Rs.3000/-but the same was dishonoured and Rs.590/-was debited from the account of the complainant. The ld. counsel further argued that as per the bank statement again cheque of Rs.3000/- was bounced and Rs.590/-was debited. The ld. counsel further argued that the complainant was having sufficient amount in his account and the cheques have been wrongly dishonoured.So the complaint be allowed.
- On the other hand, the ld. counsel for OP No.1 has argued that the cheque was dishonoured from Bombay branch so this Court has no jurisdiction. The ld. counsel further argued that there is no fault of OP No.1.So the complaint be dismissed.
- To prove this case, the complainant has tendered his affidavit, Ex.CA and deposed as per the complaint, Ex.C1 is the Aadhar card,Ex.C2 is the document of State Bank of Patiala, Sai Market, Patiala in the name of complainant Sandeep Singh. On 4.9.2017 there was Rs.22701/- in his credit. In the entry dated 6.9.2017 the cheque was dishonoured and Rs.590/-was debited and also on 11.9.2017 again cheque was dishonoured and Rs.590/-was debited. No reason has been given in the written statement that why the cheque issued by Sandeep Singh from his account with State Bank of India now known as State Bank of India was dishonoured when complainant was having sufficient amount in his account. So there is deficiency of service on the part of OP No.1 as it was incumbent upon the bank to justify that why the cheque was dishonoured and why Rs.590/-was debited from his account.Ex.C3 is legal notice, Ex.C4 to C7 are e-mails,Ex.C9 is statement of Capital First.
- On the other hand Sh.Sandeep Garg, Deputy Manager has tendered his affidavit, Ex.OPA and he has deposed as per the written statement. In para No.5, it is submitted that OP No.1 has no role and the amount was debited by the system of the bank as cheque was returned by CCPC Mumbai and OP has no role in debiting the amount. This written submission is totally vague as the cheque was issued from the account which the complainant has been maintaining with OP No.1 and it was the duty of OP No.1 that when the complainant was having sufficient amount in his account, the cheque cannot be dishonoured. So there is deficiency of service on the part of OP No.1 and is liable to refund the amount.
- So, due to our above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed and the OP No.1 is directed to refund the total amount of Rs.1180/- to the complainant. The OP No.1 is further directed to pay Rs.5000/-as compensation and Rs.5000/-as costs of litigation.
Compliance of the order be made by the OP No.1 within a period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order. ANNOUNCED DATED:1.9.2021 Dr.Harman Shergill Sullar Jasjit Singh Bhinder Member President | |
