New Complaint No.207 of 2023.
Date of Institution: 26.10.2023.
Old Complaint No: 178 of 2018.
Date of Institution: 10.04.2018.
Date of order:20.11.2023.
M/s Sood General Store, Dadwan Road, Dhariwal, District Gurdaspur, through its Proprietor Kuldeep Sood Son of Sh. Jagdish Chander, resident of Village Dadwan, Dhariwal, District Gurdaspur. Pin Code – 143519.
….....Complainant.
VERSUS
1. Union Bank of India, Branch Batala, through its Branch Manager. Pin Code -143505.
2. Union Bank of India, Branch Kot Santokh Rai, P.O. Dhariwal, District Gurdaspur, through its Branch Manager. Pin Code – 143519.
….Opposite parties.
Complaint U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Present: For the Complainant: Sh.Aseem Mahajan, Advocate.
For the Opposite Parties: Sh.Rajinder Kumar, Advocate.
Quorum: Sh.Lalit Mohan Dogra, President, Sh.Bhagwan Singh Matharu, Member.
ORDER
Lalit Mohan Dogra, President.
Kuldeep Sood, Complainant, (Proprietor of M/s Sood General Store) (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (here-in-after referred to as 'Act') against Union Bank of India Etc. (here-in-after referred to as 'opposite parties).
2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that the complainant is having current account in the Branch of the OP No. 2 vide A/c No.441005040070001 and he is earning livelihood for him and his family from this business of selling and purchasing confectionary items, as such he is consumer of the OP No. 2. It is pleaded that recently the complainant obtained the copy of account statement of this account and to his utter surprise Cheque No. 001152 amounting of Rs.15,000/- in the name of M/s Sanan Soap factory has been found cleared and paid to Sanan Trading Company Batala. It is further pleaded that the OP’s have wrongly and illegally cleared the Cheque in favour of M/s Sanan Trading Company, Batala, knowingly that the said firm is not bearer of the Cheque and the Cheque was not to be cleared and paid to the said firm and as such the complainant requested the OP’s so many times to take back the entry and pay back this amount in his account after making reverse entry, as the complainant was not to pay anything to the firm Sanan Trading Company, Batala in whose favour the Cheque in question was been wrongly cleared and encashed. It is further pleaded that although the complainant has made several request to the OP’s and also to the concerned official of bank to do the needful, but all in vain. It is further pleaded that due to this illegal act and conduct of the opposite parties the complainant has suffered great loss and also suffered mental agony, Physical harassment and inconvenience. It is further pleaded that there is a clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency and negligence in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and prayed that necessary directions may kindly be issued to the opposite parties to take back entry which has wrongly cleared in favour of M/s Sanan Trading Company and pay back this amount in his account after making reverse entry and further order the opposite parties to pay Rs.50,000/- on account of harassment and mental pain and agony for deficiency in service and Rs.50,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant, in the interest of justice.
3. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared through counsel and contested the complaint and filing their written reply by taking the preliminary objection that the complaint filed by the complainant is not legally maintainable. It is pleaded that there are two firms i.e. M/s Sanan Soap Factory and M/s Sood General Store are having accounts with opposite party and a Cheque No. 32001152 dated 02.07.2016 amounting to Rs.15,000/- duly signed by M/s Sood General Store was counter presented by M/s Sanan Soap Factory for deposit of proceeds to Cash Credit Account maintained with the opposite party No. 1. It is further pleaded that M/s Sanan Soap Factory also having second account in the name of M/s Sanam Trading Company with the opposite party No. 1 and by mistake the proceeds of the Cheque was wrongly credited to the account of M/s Sanan Soap Factory instead of M/s Sanam Trading Company and Later of M/s Sanam Trading Company has requested for correction of the mistake and accordingly the amount of Cheque was transferred to the proper account of the customer as it was named in Cheque. It is further pleaded that entire transactions were done as per the norms of the bank. It is further pleaded that the credit was given by mistake to M/s Sanam Trading Company due to wrong filing of the form and the mistake was corrected on the request of M/s Sanan Soap Factory vide application dated 01.08.2016. It is further pleaded that present complaint has been filed only to harass and blackmail the opposite parties. It is further pleaded that the mistake has already been rectified in the year 2016.
On merits, the opposite parties have reiterated their stand as taken in legal objections and denied all the averments of the complaint and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. In the end, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of Kuldeep Sood, (Complainant, Proprietor of M/s Sood General Store) as Ex.C-1 alongwith other documents as Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-5.
5. Learned counsel for the opposite parties has tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Sourabh Handa, (Assistant Manager, Union Bank of India, Batala, Gurdaspur) as Ex.OP-1/A alongwith other documents as Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-5.
6. Written arguments not filed by both the parties.
7. Counsel for the complainant has argued that complainant has having account with opposite party No.2 and complainant obtained statement of account and came to know that one of cheque No.001152 for Rs.15,000/- issued in the name of M/s Sanan Soap Factory has been wrongly cleared and paid to Sanan Trading Company Batala. Complainant had repeatedly requested the opposite parties to correct the entry but they refused which amounts to deficiency in service.
8. On the other hand counsel for the opposite party has argued that are two firms namely M/s Sanan Soap Factory and M/s Sood General Store are having accounts with opposite parties. It is further argued that cheque was presented by Sanan Soap Factory and by mistake the proceeds of the cheque was wrongly credited to the account of M/s Sanan Soap Factory instead of M/s Sanam Trading Company and on request of M/s Sanam Trading Company mistake was corrected and amount was transferred to the correct account on 01.08.2016 which is evident from copy of statement of account. As such there is no deficiency in service.
9. We have heard the Ld. counsels for the parties and gone through the record.
10. It is admitted fact that complainant had issued cheque in the name of M/s Sanan Soap Factory. It is further admitted fact that said cheque was wrongly credited to the account of M/s Sanam Trading Company on 02.07.2016. The only disputed issue whether the wrongly made entry has been corrected by the Bank or not or that complainant is entitle to any compensation. Perusal of record and pleadings shows that cheque has been wrongly encashed to the account of M/s Sanam Trading Company and on request mistake was corrected and entry was corrected on 01.08.2016. Although, there is mistake on the part of Bank but we are of the view that said mistake has taken place on the part of some employee of the Bank and on receiving complaint the said mistake was corrected. The complainant has not shown as to what loss has been caused to the complainant on account of said clerical mistake. Moreover, the said entry was corrected on 01.08.2016 and present complaint has been filed on 10.04.2018 which means that complainant was very well aware about the correction having been made and intentionally concealed the said fact from this Commission. As such we are of the view that the present complaint is only abuse of process of law and as such we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
11. Accordingly, present complaint is ordered to be dismissed with no order as to costs.
12. The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases, vacancies in the office and due to pandemic of Covid-19.
13. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record.
(Lalit Mohan Dogra)
President
Announced: (B.S.Matharu)
Nov. 20, 2023 Member
*YP*
