Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/195/2023

SANJEEV GARG - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE BRANCH MANAGER UNION BANK OF INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

ANIL KUMAR GARG

02 Sep 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T. CHANDIGARH

==================

Appeal No.	:	A/195/2023
Date  of  Institution	:	10/08/2023
Date   of   Decision	:	02/09/2024

 

 

 

 

 

Sanjeev Garg, Shop No. 570, Motor Market, Manimajra, U.T. Chandigarh, Prop. of M/s Balaji Tyres.

 

….Appellant

Vs.

 

1.     The Branch Manager, Union Bank of India, SCF 22, New Motor Market, Manimajra, Chandigarh – 160101.

 

2.     The Regional Manager, Union Bank of India, SCO 64-65, 1^st Floor, Sector 17-B, Bank Square, Chandigarh – 160017.

…. Respondents

 

 

BEFORE: JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI    PRESIDENT

MRS. PADMA PANDEY                   MEMBER

       

PRESENT	:	Sh. Anil Kumar Garg, Advocate for the Appellant.
		Sh. Naren Partap Singh, Advocate for the Respondents along with Sh. Deepak Singh, Branch Head of Union Bank of India.

 

PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

 

 

 

1.         The present appeal has been filed by the Appellant impugning the order dated 03.07.2023 vide which the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh (for brevity hereinafter to be referred as “the Ld. District Commission”), dismissed the Consumer Complaint bearing no.CC/264/2022, in the following terms:-

“4.     In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.”

2.         For the convenience, the parties are being referred to, in the instant Appeal, as position held in Consumer Complaint before the Ld. District Commission.

 

3.         Before the Ld. District Commission, it was the case of the Complainant that he was having Current A/c No. 205311100001200 with the OPs Bank and issued Cheque No.003046 dated 10.12.2021 to MRF Limited for a sum of ₹2,50,000/-  with an assurance that it would be encashed on its presentation. However, when the MRF Limited presented the subject cheque with its Banker, the said cheque was returned unpaid by the OPs Bank with remarks “insufficient funds” vide Memo dated 20.12.2021 though there was sufficient amount in the account of the complainant. It was alleged that the OPs had wrongly dishonoured the cheque and illegally charged ₹590/- from the Complainant.  A written complaint was also given, but to no avail. Even a legal notice was also served upon the OPs, but the same failed to fructify.  Hence, the aforesaid Consumer Complaint was filed before the Ld. District Commission, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.

 

4.         In the reply filed before the Ld. District Commission, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, Opposite Parties pleaded the said cheque was returned to the complainant as sufficient amount was not lying in the account at the relevant time. In fact, another cheque was also presented by the complainant for a sum of ₹6,50,000/- which fact has not been disclosed by the complainant in the complaint.  It was asserted that an amount of ₹590/- was  rightly charged by the OPs as per guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India  issued from time to time in case of dishonour of cheque. Even the complainant was informed after making verification about the non-availability of the sufficient funds in his account. Denying all other allegations and pleading no deficiency in service, the Opposite Party prayed for dismissal of the Complaint.

 

5.         On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence adduced on the record, Ld. District Commission dismissed the Complaint of the Complainant as noticed in the opening para of this order.  

 

6.         Aggrieved against the aforesaid order passed by the Ld. District Commission, the instant Appeal has been filed by the Appellant/Complainant.

 

7.         We have heard the Learned Counsel for the Parties and have gone through the evidence and record of the case with utmost care.

 

8.         The core question that falls for consideration before us is as to whether the Ld. District Commission has rightly passed the impugned order by appreciating the entire material placed before it. 

 

9.         After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions raised and material on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the instant Appeal is liable to be dismissed for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.

 

10.         It is the case of the Appellant/Complainant that the Ld. District Commission while passing the impugned order has failed to appreciate the documentary evidence available on record, which resulted into perverse finding. Also, the impugned order was passed without taking into consideration the facts of the case and without appreciating the correct legal position, which resulted into gross miscarriage of justice and thus deserves to be set aside. The learned counsel further argued on the similar lines and prayed for acceptance of the present appeal.

 

11.         Conversely, it has been contended on behalf of the Respondent/Opposite Parties that the order passed by the Ld. District Commission is quite just & right and does not call for any interference. The detailed finding of facts has already been recorded by the District Commission while rejecting the stand of the Appellant/Complainant. The learned counsel further argued on the similar lines as stated in the complaint filed before the Ld. District Commission and prayed for dismissal of the present appeal. 

 

12.         The main thread which runs through the present controversy is whether the Appellant/Complainant had sufficient funds in his account at the time when the cheque in question was dishonoured by the Respondents/OPs on account of insufficient funds. The Ld. District Commission in Para 3(iv) of the impugned order after going through the material available on record has aptly recoded a finding that per Annexure R-1/5 an amount of ₹1,30,000/-, which was to be transferred in the account of the Complainant through instrument No. 222205, was only reflected in the account of the complainant on 20.12.2021 at 16:44:07 (4:44:07 p.m.) though the same has been shown in the statement of account Annexure C-1 on 18.12.2021. Similarly the amount of ₹35,200/- was reflected in the system of the Respondents/OPs on 20.12.2021 at 16:44:07 (4:44:07 p.m.) and before that though shadow entry qua the said amount was made in the statement of account on 18.12.2021, but in fact said amount was only reflected in the system on 20.12.2021 at 4:44:07 p.m. after the confirmation of the aforesaid amount.  The Bank is bound to follow the procedure laid down by the RBI which says outwards clearing cheques received upto the cut off time would be processed on the same day (T-0) and uploaded to Finacle on next date (T+1) as unclear balance. Evidently, the cheque in question was presented on 18.12.2021, which was Saturday and 19.12.2021 was bank holiday being Sunday and the service branch of the bank had uploaded to Finacle on the very next working day i.e. 20.12.2021 at 4:44:07 P.M. The instruction circular regarding Cheque Truncation System (CTS) is at Annexure R-1/6 which has duly been considered by the Ld. Lower Commission while recording its finding in Para 3(v) of the order impugned before us.

 

13.         For determining the question if the cheque was dishonoured by the bank after 4:44:07 p.m.  when the amount deposited by the complainant to the tune of ₹1,65,200/- had been uploaded to Finacle system of the OPs and OPs had wrongly returned the cheque as unpaid to the complainant, the Ld. District Commission in Para 3(iv) has observed that Annexure R-1/4  (copy of ledger enquiry) indicates that aforesaid amount of ₹1,65,200/- (₹1,30,000/- plus ₹35,200/-) had not been reflected in the system uploaded to Finacle, making further clear that the balance amount of ₹2,97,901.35 was reflected in the statement of account  Annexure C-1 as per guidelines Annexure R-1/6 and same was not available on 20.12.2021 before 4:44:07 pm. and the said cheque was dishonoured  by the  OPs on 20.12.2021 when the system was verified on the said date at 13:27:52 (1:27:52 p.m.). In this backdrop, the Ld. District Commission has rightly held that the complainant did not have sufficient funds in his account at the time when the cheque was dishonoured by the OPs bank on account of insufficient funds and the OPs rightly charged ₹590/- towards dishonour of cheques. To our mind, no case is therefore made for any interference in the well reasoned findings recorded by the Ld. Lower Commission.

 

14.         No other point was urged, by the Learned Counsel for the parties.

 

15.         It is demonstrable from a reading of the impugned Order of the Ld. District Commission that it is certainly not an order passed without reasons or without applying the judicious mind. The facts and circumstances of the case have been gone into, weighed and considered, and due analysis of the same has been made. It also does not appear to be an order passed without taking into account the available evidence.

 

16.         In the wake of the position, as sketched out above, we are dissuaded to interfere with the impugned order rendered by the Ld. District Commission. The appeal being bereft of merit is accordingly dismissed and the order of the Ld. District Commission is upheld.

 

17.         All the pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed off accordingly.

 

18.         Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

 

19.         The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced

02^nd Sept., 2024                                                                

                                         Sd/-                         

                                (JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(PADMA PANDEY)

MEMBER

“Dutt”