Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/264/2022

Sh. Sanjeev Garg - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Anil Kumar Garg

03 Jul 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/264/2022
Date of Institution	:	3.3.2022
Date of Decision	:	3/7//2023

 

Sh. Sanjeev Garg, shop No.570, Motor market Manimajra, U.T., Chandigarh prop. Of M/s  Balaji Tyres

… Complainant(s)

V E R S U S

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 17B, (bank squar) Chandigarh 160017.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

 

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Deepak Aggarwal, vice counsel for Sh. Anil Kumar Garg,  Counsel for complainant
	:	Sh.  Naren Partap Singh  Counsel for OPs

 

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 against the opposite parties  (hereinafter referred to as the OP/OPs). The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. It transpires from the averments as projected in the consumer complaint that the complainant is proprietor of M/s Balaji Tyres  executive dealer motor market,  Manimajra, U.T., Chandigarh, who is having current account with the OPs bank,  having No. 205311100001200, where he is maintaining sufficient  balance. The complainant issued cheque No.003046 Annexure C-2 dated 10.12.2021  to MRF Ltd., for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-  with the assurance to the MRF that whenever the same is presented it will be encashed. However, when the MRF had presented the   subject cheque with its banker HDFC, Ind. Area Phase-II,  Chandigarh, the said cheque was returned unpaid by the OPs bank  with the remarks “insufficient funds,” vide memo dated 20.12.2021 though sufficient amount was lying in the account of the complainant. The OPs had wrongly dishonoured the cheque and illegally charged Rs.590/-  from the complainant’s account which is clear from the statement of account Annexure C-1.  The complainant had given written complaint but with no result. After that legal notice was also issued to the  OPs  and even after that nothing has been done by the  OPs.  The aforesaid act amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. OPs were requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2. OPs resisted the consumer complaint and filed their written version, inter alia, taking preliminary objections of maintainability, cause of action concealment of fact and locus standi. On merit it is admitted that the subject cheque was returned unpaid to the complainant but alleged that the said cheque was returned to the complainant as  sufficient amount was not lying in the account of the complainant at the relevant time. It is further averred that in fact another cheque was also presented by the complainant for a sum of Rs.6,50,000/- which fact has not been disclosed by the complainant in the complaint. It is further averred that an amount of Rs.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 the account of the complainant at the time when the same was  dishonoured.  The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
3. In replication, complainant re-asserted the claim put forth in the consumer complaint and prayer has been made that the consumer complaint be allowed as prayed for.

2. In order to prove their case, parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of respective affidavits and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the file carefully, including the written arguments.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the parties that the complainant is account holder of  the OPs bank and the cheque Annexure C-2 was returned unpaid to complainant by the drawee bank  for the reason “insufficient funds” as is also evident from memo Annexure C-3 and statement of account Annexure C-1 , the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if  the OPs are unjustified in returning the cheque to the drawee bank on the ground  that sufficient funds were not available in the account of complainant and the complainant is entitled  for relief as  prayed for, as is the case of the complainant  or if the OPs are justified in returning the subject cheque on the ground  that sufficient fund was not available in the account of the complainant and as such the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed as is the defence of the OPs.
   2. In the back drop of the foregoing admitted and disputed facts on record, it is clear that the entire case of the parties is revolving around the fact that if the complainant was having sufficient amount in his account at the time of clearance of the subject cheque  and for that purpose the documents tendered by the parties are required to be scanned carefully. 
   3. The learned counsel for the complainant contended with vehemence that  on 20.12.2021 an amount of Rs.2,97,901.35 was available in the account of the complainant when the cheque pertaining to Rs.2,50,000/-  was presented and it is clear on record that the  OPs have wrongly returned the subject cheque unpaid and the said act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service and the complainant is entitled for relief as prayed for.
   4. On the other hand the learned counsel for OPs  has contended with vehemence that as it stands proved on record that though the amount of Rs.2,97,901.35 has been reflected in the statement of account Annexure C-1 on 20.12.2021  but since it is evident from documents tendered by the OPs Annexure R-1/4 that the amount of Rs.2,50,000/- was not available in the account of the complainant at the time when the  subject cheque in question was  received for encashing and same was dishonoured, thus, the complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost. We find force in the contention of the learned counsel  for  OPs as it is clear from Annexure R-1/5 that an amount of Rs.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 Rs.35,200/- was reflected in the system of the 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 the 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. Even it is clear from the Annexure R-1/6 i.e. instructions circular issued by the OPs for Cheque Truncaton System (CTS) that all outward clearing cheques received upto the cut of time at service branch/scanning centre will be processed on the same day (T-0) and uploaded to Finacle on the next day (T+1) as unclear balance. It is an admitted case of the parties that the cheque was presented on 18.12.2021, which was Saturday and 19^th was bank holiday being Sunday  and  the service branch of the bank had uploaded to Finacle on the next working day i.e. 20.12.2021 at 4:44:07  P.M. .
   5. In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, now  the further question for determination before us is 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 Rs.1,65,200/- had been uploaded to Finacle system of the OPs and OPs had wrongly returned the cheque as unpaid to the complainant.   However, perusal of R-1/4  the copy of ledger enquiry indicates that the aforesaid amount of Rs.1,65,200/- (Rs.1,30,000/- plus Rs.35,200/-) had not been reflected in the system uploaded to Finacle, making further clear that the balance amount of Rs.2,97,901.35 was reflected in the statement of account  Annexure C-1 as per guidelines issued by the OPs available at 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.).
   6. In view of the above discussion when it stands proved on record that the complainant had not sufficient funds in his account at the time when the subject cheque was dishonoured by the OPs bank on account of insufficient  funds and charged Rs. 590/- due to dishonour of cheques, it is unsafe to hold that there is deficiency on the part of the OPs.
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.
5. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced 3/07/2023 mp			Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member