Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/14/758

Surinder Dogra - Complainant(s)

Versus

State Bankk of Patiala - Opp.Party(s)

Naresh Yadav

28 Apr 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

                                                                    Complaint No: 758 of 07.11.2014

                                                                   Date of Decision: 28.04.2015

                    

Surinder Dogra, Advocate s/o Sh.M.R.Dogra, Resident of 36-A, Vikas Nagar, Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana.

.…Complainant

Versus 

1. State Bank of Patiala, Kitchlu Nagar Branch, Ludhiana, through its Branch Manager.

2. Indian Overseas Bank, Civil Lines, Fountain Chowk, Ludhiana, through its Branch Manager.

3. The Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Model Town Sub Division, Ludhiana, through its XEN.

…..Opposite parties 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE

CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Quorum:    Sh.R.L.Ahuja, President

                    Sh.Sat Paul Garg, Member

                    Smt.Babita, Member

 

Present:      Sh.Rajeev Abhi, Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh.B.K.Goel, Advocate for OP1.

                   OP2 exparte.

                   Sh.Yash Paul, Advocate for OP3.

 

 

ORDER

 (SAT PAUL GARG, MEMBER)

1.               Present complaint under Section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after in short to be referred as ‘Act’) has been filed by Sh.Surinder Dogra, Advocate s/o Sh.M.R.Dogra, Resident of 36-A, Vikas Nagar, Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana (herein-after in short to be referred as ‘complainant’) against State Bank of Patiala, Kitchlu Nagar Branch, Ludhiana, through its Branch Manager and others (herein-after in short to be referred as ‘OPs’)- directing them to pay the claim amount of Rs.10 lacs as damages/compensation for mental pain and agony and further Ops are liable to pay interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint till realization.

2.                Brief facts of the complaint are that an electric connection bearing account no.W31SN-320206K is laying installed in the property bearing no.36-A, Vikas Nagar, Ludhiana. Last bill of this meter account was for Rs.19,320/-. The said amount was deposited by the complainant with PSPCL, Model Town Sub Division, Ludhiana i.e. OP3, vide cheque no.590122 dated 19.8.14 drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, Civil Lines, Fountain Chowk, Ludhiana i.e. OP2. But to the great shock and dismay of the complainant all of a sudden, the employees of PSPCL came to the property of the complainant and were about to disconnect the electric connection lying installed in the property on the pretext that the aforesaid cheque, which was issued by the complainant from his account no.14519 was dishonoured by the OP2 on account of Fund Insufficient in his account, vide memo dated 23.8.14. As a matter of fact there was credit balance of more than Rs.1,70,000/- in the account of the complainant, so there was no occasion for the OP2 to dishonor the cheque of the complainant on account of insufficient funds. Thereafter inquiries were also made by the complainant from his banker and it was informed by his banker that the cheque in question was never presented by the OP1 with his banker for encashment. Otherwise, also there was no occasion for the banker of the complainant to dishonor the cheque on account of insufficient funds as there was more than sufficient balance in his account. It seems that OP1 without presenting the cheque to the banker of the complainant i.e. OP2, fraudulently and in a clandestine manner, dishonoured the same by making reference on the memo of insufficient funds. These acts have been one by OP1 and OP2 illegally and without there being any right in order to lower the reputation of the complainant. Complainant also got served a legal notice dated 22.9.14 posted on the same day, through his counsel. The said notice was duly received by the OP1 and OP2, but they failed to do the needful. Claiming the above act as deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has filed this complaint.

3.                On notice of the complaint, OP1 appeared through his counsel and filed written statement taking preliminary objections that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable in the present form, as such, the same is liable to be dismissed; there is no negligence on the part of the OP1; the complainant has suppressed the true and material facts from this Forum. As a matter of fact, the OP1 sent the cheque in question i.e. cheque no.590122 dated 19.08.14 for clearance/encashment to its clearing Branch i.e. State Bank of Patiala, Miller Ganj, Ludhiana, but the bank of complainant i.e. Indian Oversesas Bank Civil Lines, Ludhiana/OP2 returned the said cheque as unpaid and dishonoured the same with the remarks “Fund Insufficient” on 23.08.14. After receiving the said cheque being dishonoured, OP1 returned the cheque in question to its customer on 23.8.14. As such, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. On merits, denying the contents of all other paras of the complaint, OP1 prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

4.                Notice of the complaint was sent to OP2, which was served. But despite service of the notice, none had come present on behalf of OP2. As such, OP2 is proceeded exparte, vide order dated 2.12.14.

5.                Written statement on behalf of OP3 was filed, wherein they took certain preliminary objections that this complaint is not maintainable qua the answering OP and is liable to be dismissed. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP3. In this case, the complainant is consumer of Electric connection bearing account no.SN-32/0206K with OP3 and the OP3 issued an electric bill to the complainant for the electricity consumed by him and the complainant deposited the said bill amount in the shape of cheque for an amount of Rs.19,320/- and the OPs received the said cheque subject to its clearance. But on 23.8.14 the OP1 returned the said cheque with the memo dated 23.8.14 with the remarks ‘Funds Insufficient” meaning thereby that there is not amount in the account of the consumer to clear the cheque amount and when this facts came to the knowledge of the consumer he had deposited the bill amount alongwith amount of surcharge, total amount of Rs.21,258/- on 7.9.14 with OP3 after admitting his fault. From the above it is crystal clear that if there is any deficiency the same is lying only with the OP1 and OP2. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP3 and as such the present complaint of the complainant is not maintainable qua the OP3 as such the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed. On merits, denying the contents of all other paras of the complaint, OP3 prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

 6.               Ld. counsel for complainant has adduced the evidence by way duly sworn affidavit of complainant Sh.Surinder Dogra Ex.CA, wherein, the same facts have been reiterated as narrated in the complaint and attached affidavit of Sh.Jujhar Singh, Assistant Manager of Indian Overseas Bank, Civil Lines Branch, Ludhiana Ex.CB and also attached documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C10. On the other hand, Ld. counsel for OP1 has adduced the evidence by way of duly sworn affidavit of Sh.Charanpreet Singh Pahwa, Assistant Manager, State Bank of Patiala, Kitchlu Nagar, Ludhiana Ex.RW1/A, wherein the same facts have been reiterated a s narrated in the written statement and also attached documents Ex.RW1/1 to Ex.RW1/7. Whereas, Ld. counsel for OP3 has adduced the evidence by way of duly sworn affidavit of Sh.Sanjeev Parbhakar, Senior Executive Engineer, Model Town Division (Special), PSPCL, District Ludhiana Ex.RA/3, wherein, the same facts have been reiterated as narrated in the written statement.

7.                Ld. counsel for complainant argued that an electric connection bearing account no.W31SN-320206K is laying installed in the property of the complainant. Last bill of this meter account was for Rs.19,320/-. The said amount was deposited by the complainant with PSPCL, Model Town Sub Division, Ludhiana i.e. OP3, vide cheque no.590122 dated 19.8.14 drawn on India Overseas Bank, Civil Lines, Fountain Chowk, Ludhiana i.e. OP2. But to the great shock and dismay of the complainant the aforesaid cheque, which was issued by the complainant from his account no.14519 was dishonoured by the OP2 on account of Fund Insufficient in his account, vide memo dated 23.8.14. As a matter of fact there was credit balance of more than Rs.1,70,000/- in the account of the complainant, so there was no reason for the OP2 to dishonor the cheque of the complainant on account of insufficient funds. ,which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OP1 and OP2.

8.                Ld. counsel for OP1 argued that the OP1 sent the cheque in question i.e. cheque no.590122 dated 19.08.14 for clearance/encashment to its clearing Branch i.e. State Bank of Patiala, Miller Ganj, Ludhiana, but the bank of complainant i.e. Indian Oversesas Bank Civil Lines, Ludhiana/OP2 returned the said cheque as unpaid and dishonoured the same with the remarks “Fund Insufficient” on 23.08.14. After receiving the said cheque being dishonoured, OP1 returned the cheque in question to its customer on 23.8.14. As such, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed.  

9.                Ld. counsel for OP3 argued that the complainant is consumer of Electric connection bearing account no.SN-32/0206K with OP3 and the OP3 issued an electric bill to the complainant for the electricity consumed by him and the complainant deposited the said bill amount in the shape of cheque for an amount of Rs.19,320/- and the OP3 received the said cheque subject to its clearance. But on 23.8.14 the OP1 returned the said cheque with the memo dated 23.8.14 with the remarks ‘Funds Insufficient”. When this facts came to the knowledge of the consumer he had deposited the bill amount alongwith amount of surcharge, total amount of Rs.21,258/- on 7.9.14 with OP3 after admitting his fault. As such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP3.

10.              We have gone through the pleadings of the complainant as well as defecne taken by the Ops and have also perused the entire record placed on file.

11.              It is evident that the complainant presented the cheque of Rs.19320/- drawn on Indian Overseas Bank/OP2. But the said cheque was dishonoured by the OP2 on account of Fund Insufficient in his account, vide memo dated 23.8.14, despite the fact that there was credit balance of more than Rs.1,70,000/- in the account of the complainant. On inquiries it was informed by his banker that the cheque in question was never presented by the OP1 with his banker for encashment. Otherwise, also there was no reason for the banker of the complainant to dishonor the cheque on account of insufficient funds as there was more than sufficient balance in his account. It seems that OP1 without presenting the cheque to the banker of the complainant i.e. OP2, fraudulently and in a clandestine manner, dishonoured the same by making reference on the memo of insufficient funds. These acts have been done by OP1 and OP2 wrongly and illegally. It is further evident from Ex.CB that it was a mistake that occurred on the part of OP1, who mentioned the wrong account number of the complainant. As such, OP1 is found to be deficient in service, as is evident from Ex.CB, the affidavit of Jujhar Singh, Assistant Manager of Indian Overseas Bank, whereby it is revealed that OP1 mistakenly mentioned account number as 4519 instead of 14519 and this fact remained unrebutted.

12.              Sequel to the above discussion, the present complaint is allowed and OP1 is directed to pay Rs.5000/-(Five thousand only) as compensation and litigation expenses compositely assessed to the complainant. Order be complied within 30 days of receipt of the copy of the order, which be made available to the parties, free of costs. File be consigned to record room.

 

                   (Babita)                          (S.P.Garg)                      (R.L.Ahuja)

                   Member                           Member                         President

Announced in Open Forum.

Dated:28.04.2015 

Hardeep Singh