Haryana

Sonipat

CC/80/2016

Sandeep Sharawat - Complainant(s)

Versus

Vijaya Bank - Opp.Party(s)

14 Jul 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

               

 

                                Complaint No.80 of 2016                                              Instituted on:22.03.2016.

                                Date of order:14.07.2016

 

Sandeep Sharawat, H.No.86,Sukhbir Netaji Gali, village Singhu, Delhi-40.

 

…Complainant.         

Versus

 

Vijaya Bank, Kundli Branch, SCO NO.38, HSIDC, Commercial Complex Indl. Area, Kundli, distt. Sonepat.

                                                     …Respondent.

 

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. NK Dahiya      Advocate for complainant.

           Sh. MK Verma     Advocate for respondent.

 

 

Before-    Nagender Singh-President.

Prabha Wati-Member.

J.L. Gupta-Member.

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondent alleging therein that he is account holder of the respondent vide account no.831501011001667.  The debtor of the complainant had issued cheque no.008865 in favour of the complainant for Rs.85000/- and the complainant has deposited the said cheque with the respondent for its encashment.  The said cheque was credited in the account of the complainant on 25.11.2014.  It was never intimated to the complainant that the said cheque was dishonoured, returned or reached in the hands of the complainant and in this way, the complainant remained under the impression that the said cheque was duly encashed.  As the dishonoured cheque was not returned to the complainant and the amount of the said cheque was deposited in the complainant’s account, so there was no reason or occasion for the complainant to approach the cheque issuing party for payment of the cheque. On 18.1.2016 after lapse of more than a year, the respondent has informed the complainant that the said cheque was dishonoured on 26.11.2014 and the amount was wrongly credited in his account and so, the amount was liable to be debited.  The complainant was shocked and astonished to see the conduct of the respondent.  The complainant cannot be made to suffer by the respondent by pressing him to deposit the amount of the cheque or the respondent will appropriate the said amount from FDR account of the complainant. The respondent has failed to render the due services and has caused unnecessary mental agony and harassment to the complainant.  So, the complainant has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        In reply, the respondent has submitted that the complainant is maintaining the account with the respondent bank.  On 25.11.2014, two cheques of Rs.85000/- were sent in clearing, one bearing to Sandeep Shahrawat whose cheque no. is 008865 and the second cheque belongs to DI Plast India Pvtg. Ltd.  whose cheque no. is 047426  The cheque no.008865 which pertains to the complainant was returned unpaid on 26.11.2014 but the same was debited in the account of M/s DI Plast India Pvt. Ltd.  The complainant has mischiefly  tried to usurp the said amount of Rs.85000/- as he was well aware about the credited of the said amount of Rs.85000/- in his account. As such the complainant was required to return the said amount of Rs.85000/- to the respondent so that the bank may be able to credit the said amount in the account of DI Plast India Pvt. Ltd.  The respondent on 18.1.2016, 9.2.2016 and 18.2.2016 sent letters to the complainant requesting him that the cheque no.008865 of Rs.85000/- was presented and credited in his account on 25.11.2014, but the fact is that the same was returned on 26.11.2014 and requested the complainant to return Rs.85000/- immediately.  But the complainant vide reply dated 17.2.2016 has denied his liability.  The respondent as per law collected the aforesaid amount of Rs.85000/- from VSU A/C No.83150331100560 of the complainant on 25.2.2016 and the complainant was intimated in this regard by the respondent.  Thus, it cannot be said that there is any deficiency in service on the part of the respondent and the complainant is not entitled for any relief & compensation and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.        We have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties at length.  All the documents have been perused very carefully and minutely.  We very carefully have also perused the written arguments submitted on behalf of the respondent.

4.        Ld. Counsel for the respondent has submitted that the complainant is maintaining the account with the respondent bank.  On 25.11.2014, two cheques of Rs.85000/- were sent in clearing, one bearing to Sandeep Shahrawat whose cheque no. is 008865 and the second cheque belongs to DI Plast India Pvtg. Ltd.  whose cheque no. is 047426  The cheque no.008865 which pertains to the complainant was returned unpaid on 26.11.2014 but the same was debited in the account of M/s DI Plast India Pvt. Ltd.  The complainant has mischiefly  tried to usurp the said amount of Rs.85000/- as he was well aware about the credited of the said amount of Rs.85000/- in his account. As such the complainant was required to return the said amount of Rs.85000/- to the respondent so that the bank may be able to credit the said amount in the account of DI Plast India Pvt. Ltd.  The respondent on 18.1.2016, 9.2.2016 and 18.2.2016 sent letters to the complainant requesting him that the cheque no.008865 of Rs.85000/- was presented and credited in his account on 25.11.2014, but the fact is that the same was returned on 26.11.2014 and requested the complainant to return Rs.85000/- immediately.  But the complainant vide reply dated 17.2.2016 has denied his liability.  The respondent as per law collected the aforesaid amount of Rs.85000/- from VSU A/C No.83150331100560 of the complainant on 25.2.2016 and the complainant was intimated in this regard by the respondent.  Thus, it cannot be said that there is any deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.

          In the present case, one thing is clear that the amount of cheque in question was credited in the account of the complainant on 25.11.2014.  But the respondent for the first time has informed the complainant regarding wrong credit of the cheque in question on 18.1.2016.  In our view, there is a lapse on the part of the respondent because w.e.f. 25.11.2014 to 18.1.2016 they never made any effort to inform the complainant, whereas during this period, audit of the bank was conducted and even financial year 2014-15 was also lapsed.  The respondent has rendered the deficient services to the complainant because the respondent took almost 1¾ year in informing the complainant regarding their alleged mistake.  Thus, the respondent himself is liable for his own act and deeds and for the lapses on the part of the respondent, the complainant cannot be made to suffer. Thus, we hereby direct the respondent not to deduct any amount from the FDR account of the complainant and if any amount is deducted, then the same is directed to be credited in the FDR account of the complainant.

           With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed.

          Certified copy of this order be provided to both the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

(Prabha Wati)(J.L.Gupta)                   (Nagender Singh-President)

Member DCDRF  Member DCDRF                   DCDRF, Sonepat.

Announced:14.07.2016