Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/38/2021

Rohit Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, State Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

N.K. Malhotra

25 Jan 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/38/2021
Date of Institution	:	18/01/2021
Date of Decision	:	25/01/2024

 

Rohit Kumar, S/o Lt. Sh.Basant Lal, R/o H.No.181/2, Sector 41-A, Chandigarh.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, NRI Branch, Chandigarh, 111-113, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh.

… Opposite Party

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                

ARGUED BY	:	Sh.N.K.Malhotra, Advocate for Complainant.
	:	Sh.Sanjeev Dua, Advocate for OP.

 

Per Suresh Kumar Sardana, Member

1.      Averments are that the complainant is having an account as saving bank account in the OP’ bank branch as NRI branch Chandigarh, since a long time. However, complainant is residing at Australia address given mentioned above and used to visit India from abroad whenever, he needs. It is submitted that complainant had issued a cheque vide No.975201 for a consideration of Rs.7.00 Lakh and the above said cheque was presented before OP branch mentioned above i.e., NRI Branch on 27.03.2019, but before clearing the above said cheque, no any alert message was sent to complainant on his mobile which was required in view of the RBI instructions and Rule. But in the instant case OP bank has not sent any alert message in view of the instructions mentioned above to the complainant and bank has cleared the cheque of Rs.7.00 Lakhs and debited from the account of the complainant without following the rules regarding alert message mentioned above which the action on the part of OP bank is totally against the law and it’s a lacuna in service on part of OP bank and due to negligence of the OP bank, complainant has suffered a huge loss of Rs.7.00 lakhs by which cheque of Rs.7.00 lakhs was not to be cleared but cleared just due to the mistake and negligence of the OP bank. The complainant has sent a legal notice to the OP bank dated 3.6.2020 and later on reminder was also sent on 5.10.2020 but no reply was given by the OP bank. Hence, is the present consumer complaint.
2.     OP contested the consumer complaint, filed its written reply and stated that the complainant had failed to mentioned time and phone number or any request reference number of his alleged request of stop payment, the present complaint which clearly shows that, now after the unendurable span of time he is just to extract the money form the OP, had filed false and frivolous complaint. Moreover, the cheque was duly issued by the complainant himself with his own wish which was accordingly cleared by the bank. The complainant has intentionally not mentioned his permanent address of Australia alongwith present address while filing the complaint. On these lines, the case is sought to be defended by the OP.
3.     Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
4.     Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5.     We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and gone through the record of the case.
6.     On perusal of complaint, it is gathered that the main grievance of the complainant is that a cheque issued by him was presented to OP by one person Sh.Amit Bagga, to whom the cheque was issued and the OP cleared the cheque on 28.03.2019 without any email/confirmation.
7.     It is an admitted fact that the cheque was duly issued by complainant himself with his own wish and was accordingly cleared by the OP. It is observed that RBI in its circular No. DBS.CFMC BC No.006/23.04.001/2014-15 dated 05.11.2014 has advised some preventive measures while presenting/making payment of cheques. These preventive measures have been suggested to review and strengthen the controls in the cheque presenting/passing and account monitoring processes to avert cheque related fraud cases. In this regard Negotiable instrument Act 1881 defines the Liability of drawee i.e. OP, in Section 31 as under:-

         “The drawee of a cheque having sufficient funds of the drawer in his hands properly applicable to the payment of such cheque must pay the cheque when duly required so to do, and, in default of such payment, must compensate to do, and, in default for any loss or damages caused by such default.” OP is therefore, liable to honor the payment of cheque as per the apparent tenor on presentment of the instrument.  

8.     When the cheque was issued and duly signed by the complainant and handed over the same to the person of his own choice, as such it is duty of Bank/ OP to clear the same on its presentation without any hindrance, without getting any prior instructions from the complainant side. It is also observed that in reference to Section 10 of the Negotiable Instrument Act 1881 payment in due course is defined as under:-

         "Payment in due course" means payment in accordance with the apparent tenor of the instrument in good faith and without negligence to any person in possession thereof under circumstances which do not afford a reasonable ground for believing that he is not entitled to receive payment of the amount therein mentioned.

         Hence, we are of the view that CCPC had no reason to believe that the payee is not entitled to receive the payment of the cheque and thereafter, passed the cheque No.975201 as per the apparent tenor of the instruments in good faith and without negligence.

9.     Moreover, the phone No.472517895, as given by complainant is mentioned in CBS, is invalid. The phone number is always given by the consumer. Once the number is invalid, in no way we can hold the OP bank being responsible for non-receipt of message by the complainant. In view of the above discussion, the complainant has failed to prove his case. Accordingly, the consumer complaint, being meritless, is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
10.     Pending miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed of.
11.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

			Sd/-
25/01/2024			[Pawanjit Singh]
Ls			President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur]
			Member
			Sd/-
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana]
			Member