Haryana

StateCommission

A/1483/2017

INDIAN BANK - Complainant(s)

Versus

SUNIL KUMAR - Opp.Party(s)

AMITA KHANNA

25 Feb 2019

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA   

 

                                                 

                                                First Appeal No.1483 of 2017

                                                Date of the Institution: 06.12.2017

                                                Date of Decision: 25.02.2019

 

 

Indian Bank through its Branch Manager, Kachhwa Branch situated at Village Kachhwa, District Karnal (Haryana).

 

 

…..Appellant-Opposite Party

 

VERSUS

 

Sunil Kumar son of Shri Karam Singh, resident of Village Kalampur, Tehsil and District Karnal (Haryana).

 

 

….. Respondent-Complainant

 

 

 

CORAM:    Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.P.S. Mann, President.

                   Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.

 

                  

                                     

Present:-    Shri Ashwani Talwar with Ms. Amita Khanna, counsel for the appellant.

                   Ms. Monika Jangra, counsel for the respondent.

                  

 

                                                O R D E R

 

T.P.S. MANN, J.  

 

          The appellant i.e. Indian Bank, Branch Kachhwa, has filed the instant appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for challenging the order dated 06.11.2017 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Karnal, whereby it was directed to pay Rs.2,70,000/- as compensation to respondent Sunil Kumar within 30 days failing which the respondent was held entitled for interest @ 8% per annum from the date of order till its realization on account of deficiency in service.

2.      According to the respondent, he was having account with Indian Bank at its Kachhwa Branch. He had some dispute with one Ranjeet Singh of his village and had issued a cheque to him on 12.02.2016 knowing full well that the balance in his account was insufficient. Accordingly, he approached the bank on 19.02.2016 with a request to convert his account into non-cheque book account. In his request, he mentioned that he had lost the cheque book but did not mention any specific cheque numbers. In order to safeguard the interest of the customer, the bank converted his account into non-cheque book account and asked him to provide copies of DDR and FIR which he did not submit. On 05.03.2016, cheque No.469546 dated 12.02.2016 for Rs.2,70,000/- purportedly issued by him favouring Ranjeet Singh was presented in clearing at Karnal Branch of the Bank.  The said cheque was dishonoured with the reason “funds insufficient” since the balance in the account was only Rs.67.68. On 04.04.2016, Ranjeet Singh, who was payee of the aforesaid cheque filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Karnal against the respondent, who was drawer of cheque. On 14.09.2016, the respondent filed the complaint before the learned District Forum claiming that the Bank had wrongly dishonoured the cheque in question with the reason “funds insufficient”. He also alleged that when the cheque was presented in clearing, the bank had not intimated him and returned the cheque and thus acted negligently.

3.      Upon notice, the opposite party filed the written version to the effect that the complaint was nothing but an afterthought device to harm and harass the Bank as it was outcome of personal grudge of the respondent with Ranjeet Singh, to whom he issued the cheque knowing fully well that there was paucity of funds in his account and in order to save his skin the respondent had filed the complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The respondent had not produced the copy of DDR regarding misplacement of his cheque book inspite of repeated requests made by the Bank. The respondent had issued cheque in favour of Ranjeet Singh but the said cheque was dishonoured due to paucity of funds in his account and accordingly he fabricated a story.  There was no deficiency in service on the part of the Bank.

4.      In his evidence, the respondent tendered his affidavit Exhibit CW1/A and documents Exhibit C1 to Exhibit C10. On the other hand, the Bank tendered in evidence affidavit Exhibit O1 of Priyanka Kumari and documents Exhibit O2 to Exhibit O4.

5.      After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on going through the record, the learned District Forum held that there was gross negligence on the part of the Bank as the respondent had informed the Bank about the loss of cheque book on 19.02.2016 and the Bank had converted the account of the respondent as non-cheque book account but inspite of the same, the Bank dishonoured the cheque on 05.03.2016 on the ground of “funds insufficient” and accordingly directed the Bank to pay Rs.2,70,000/- as compensation to the respondent.

6.      The State Commission has heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7.      According to the respondent his cheque book, which contained some signed cheques was lost and accordingly on 19.02.2016 he submitted a complaint to the Police. Copy of the application submitted by him is available on the record as Exhibit C9. The respondent thereafter had obtained information (Exhibit C8) in RTI, wherein, it stood mentioned that on receipt of the application regarding loss of cheque book, the Bank had changed his account as non-cheque book account. On 05.03.2016, Ranjeet Singh, a co-villager of the respondent, presented a cheque purported to have been issued by the respondent for an amount of Rs.2,70,000/-, which was dishonoured by the Bank on 05.03.2019 with the reason “funds insufficient”.  Copy of the return memo has been placed on file by the respondent as Exhibit C3. As the cheque was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds in the account of the respondent, Ranjeet Singh got an opportunity to file a complaint against respondent  under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and in the said complaint, the respondent stood summoned as an accused. Accordingly, the stand of the Bank that the cheque purportedly issued by the respondent was dishonoured due to mistake cannot be accepted. As such there was gross negligence on the part of the Bank in dishonouring the cheque especially when the account of the respondent had already been converted into a non-cheque book account.

8.      On account of the negligence on the part of the Bank, the learned District Forum had awarded a sum of Rs.2,70,000/- as compensation to the respondent to be payable by the Bank. The said amount was the cheque amount but the fact remains that no monetary loss was caused to the respondent. Only a notice was issued to him by the Bank intimating him that the cheque issued by him for the amount of Rs.2,70,000/- stood dishonoured on account of insufficiency of funds. The respondent is required to be compensated only for the deficiency in service and not for payment of entire cheque amount. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be modified with proportion to the loss caused to the respondent.

9.      After going through the facts and circumstances of the case, the State Commission finds it appropriate to award a sum of Rs.10,000/- only to the respondent as compensation and not Rs.2,70,000/-.

10.    Resultantly, the appeal is partly allowed by modifying the order of learned District Forum, Karnal and directing the appellant bank to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- only on account of deficiency in service instead of Rs.2,70,000/-.

 

Announced 25.02.2019

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(T.P.S. Mann) President

D.R.