Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/158/2016

Parveen Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Corporation Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Amandeep Singh Nirmaan

22 Jul 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

 

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/158/2016
Date of Institution	:	08/03/2016
Date of Decision	:	22/07/2016

 

 

Parveen Kumar son of Hukum Chand r/o House No.535, Adarsh Colony, Mauli Jagran, Chandigarh

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

1.     Corporation Bank, SCF 22, New Motor Market, New Bus Stand, Manimajra, Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager.

2.     Corporation Bank, Mangaldevi Temple Road, Pandeshwar Mangalore-575001 Karnataka, India through its General Manager.

……Opposite Parties

 

 

QUORUM:	DR. MANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                       

                                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Amandeep Singh Nirmaan, Counsel for complainant
	:	Sh. G.S. Ahluwalia, Counsel for OPs

                       

                 

PER DR. MANJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

1.         Sh. Parveen Kumar, complainant has brought this consumer complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against Corporation Bank and another, Opposite Parties (hereinafter called the OPs) for refund of an amount of Rs.29,290/-, besides Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental harassment and Rs.25,000/- as costs of litigation. 

                Put in brief, the facts of the consumer complaint are that on 14.10.2015, the complainant submitted a cheque of Rs.40,274/- with OP-1. As per the contentions of the complainant, OP-1 encashed the cheque on 15.10.2015 and credited his account with Rs.40,274/-.  On 17.10.2015, the complainant withdrew an amount of Rs.1,500/- and Rs.9,500/- through ATM.  However, without any intimation to the complainant, an amount of Rs.40,274/- was debited from his account. When the complainant contacted OP-1, he was informed that the cheque was not cleared due to insufficient funds and the complainant is liable for refund.  As per the allegations of the complainant, he was threatened by the bank officials to return the amount withdrawn otherwise they would lodge a criminal case against him.  The complainant has alleged that the OPs are deficient in services and negligent. Hence, this complaint praying for the reliefs mentioned above.

2.         The OPs resisted the claim of the complainant inter alia taking the preliminary objections that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs; the complaint is bad for non-joinder of the necessary parties as Mr. Pawan Kumar, who issued the cheque in question, is a necessary party. It is pleaded that the cheque in question was presented by the complainant to the OP bank on 14.10.2015 for encashment and the same was sent to the clearing house. By mistake the OPs credited the cheque amount in the account of the complainant on 15.10.2015 prior to the communication by the clearing house in respect of dishonour of the cheque. On receipt of the returned instrument on 16.10.2015, it was learnt that the cheque was dishonoured due to insufficient funds.  Thereafter the complainant was contacted over phone and requested to visit the OPs in connection with the dishonour of the cheque in question, but, he failed to turn up and also declined to receive calls from the OPs. The complainant had not updated his new address with the OP bank and on 17.10.2015 with a view to identify his new address, the OPs visited the complainant’s address as per their record.  At the site the complainant’s neighbours informed that he had shifted from that place and that his correct address was not known. In the meantime, on 17.10.2015 the complainant withdrew an amount of Rs.1,500/- and Rs.9,500/- and under the circumstances the OP bank was constrained to debit the wrongly credited amount of Rs.40,274/- from the complainant’s account. It is alleged that the complainant came to the OP branch in the evening on 19.10.2015, but, refused to collect the returned instrument on one pretext or the other. The complainant was again requested to collect the dishonoured cheque and the cheque return memo, but, instead of doing so he has filed the instant consumer complaint. The OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 
3.         Rejoinder was filed by the complainant denying all the averments in the written statement of the OPs.
4.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 
5.         We have gone through the record, including the written arguments of the OPs, and heard the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel for the parties.
6.         The learned counsel for the complainant argued that when an amount of Rs.40,274/- was debited in the saving bank account of the complainant, the OPs did not inform him about the dishonour of the cheque, which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  As such, the complainant is entitled to refund of the balance amount to the tune of Rs.29,290/- besides, compensation for mental harassment.
7.         The learned counsel for the OPs, on the other hand, argued that the cheque presented by the complainant was dishonoured that is why the amount of the cheque, which was wrongly credited in the account of the complainant, was debited from his account. The complainant withdrew a sum of Rs.11,000/-, which he is liable to refund, but, in spite of repeated calls, he failed to return the said amount and even failed to collect the dishonoured cheque alongwith the memo.  As such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
8.         Whenever a cheque is presented in the bank, the same is sent to clearing house for clearance. Sometimes on presentation of the cheque, the cheque amount is credited in the account of the cheque holder and in case the cheque is encashed, then that entry remains intact. However, in case the cheque is dishonoured, then the cheque amount is debited in the account of the cheque holder. Similar circumstances led to crediting the cheque amount of Rs.40,274/- in the bank account of the complainant.  However, the said cheque was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds and then the cheque amount was debited in the account of the complainant.  However, before the said amount of Rs.40,274/- was debited from the account of the complainant, he succeeded in withdrawing a sum of Rs.11,000/- through ATM.  On 16.10.2015 the OP bank came to know about the dishonour of the cheque and on 19.10.2015, the said amount was debited from the bank account of the complainant. Since the cheque was dishonoured, so the OPs were left with no other option, but, to debit that amount from the account of the complainant, which was credited in his account when the cheque was presented for clearance. It is well known to everyone that the cheque amount is only credited in the account if the cheque is encashed and it is also well known that the cheque holder has a right to the cheque amount only if the said cheque is honoured and in case the said cheque is dishonoured, then the cheque holder has no right to the cheque amount.  Since the cheque issued in favour of the complainant by Mr. Pawan Kumar was dishonoured, so the complainant had no right to the amount of Rs.40,274/-which was wrongly credited in his bank account.  Since the complainant had no right to the amount of Rs.40,274/-, so OP-1 was well within its rights to debit that amount from the account of the complainant where the said amount was credited on presentation of the cheque.  When the cheque was dishonoured, it was the sweet will of the complainant either to recover the said amount from Mr. Pawan Kumar or not, but, as a good citizen, it was the duty of the complainant to refund a sum of Rs.11,000/- to the bank to which he had no right.  However, the complainant, instead of refunding that amount has brought this consumer complaint with ulterior motive to further get a sum of Rs.29,290/-, though he knew that after dishonour of the cheque, he had no right or interest on the sum of Rs.40,274/- which was wrongly credited in his bank account before clearance of the cheque. Since the cheque was dishonoured and the complainant was withdrawing the amount with the help of ATM, so it was not required for the OPs to intimate the complainant first then debit the said amount from his account because in that position the complainant would have succeeded in withdrawing whole of the amount.  Since the complainant did not redeposit the amount of Rs.11,000/- with the OP bank, so his conduct proves that had he been informed before debiting the said amount from his account, he must have withdrawn whole of the amount, which would have resulted in a great loss to the OP bank.  The OP Bank, in good faith, credited the amount in the account of the complainant, but, when the cheque was not cleared, they debited that amount from his account.  As such, neither there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs nor they adopted any unfair trade practice. We are of the view that instead of rushing to this Forum, the complainant, as a good citizen, should have redeposited the amount of Rs.11,000/- with the Bank and should not have found fault with the bank. The complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands and has brought this consumer complaint with ulterior motive to enrich himself.
9.         Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, we have no hesitation to hold that the OP bank was within its right to debit an amount of Rs.40,274/- from account of the complainant and there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part. The complaint is devoid of any merit.  Hence, the same is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
10.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
22/07/2016	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Dr. Manjit Singh]
hg	Member	Member	President