BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAPURTHALA.
Complaint No. 71 of 2022
Date of Instt. 04.10.2022
Date of Decision :30.10.2024
Rekha aged 46 years W/o Balraj Krishan Resident of St. No. 21, Guru Hargobind Nagar, Phagwara, Distt. Kapurthala.
.........Complainant
Versus
State Bank of India, Branch Guru Hargobind Nagar, Phagwara through its Branch Manager.
State Bank of India, Regional Office, Civil Lines, Jalandhar through its Branch Manager.
State Bank of India, Head Office, State Bank Bhavan, Madame Cama Marg Mumbai, 400021.
.........Opposite party
Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Sh. Rajesh Bhatia (President)
Mrs. Rajita Sareen (Member)
S. Kanwar Jaswant Singh (Member)
Present: Sh. Karanjot Singh Jhikka, Adv. Counsel for the complainant.
Sh. Varun Kumar Wadhawan counsel for OP.
Order
Sh. Rajesh Bhatia (President)
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act that complainant has opened a Bank Account No. 39857707006 in her name with the opposite party No.1. Passbook in her name was also issued by the opposite party No.1. However, no cheque book was ever received by her pertaining to the said bank account nor any message was received from the opposite party in her mobile number regarding issue of cheque book. As per version of complainant, she also opened one recurring deposit account which was linked with this savings bank account with opposite party No.1 and amount of Rs. 5,000/- was debited from same account every month. The complainant further alleged that on 5/9/2022, complainant visited the office of opposite party No.1 and deposited an amount of Rs. 40,000/- in cash in above stated bank account and she got a print out of the transaction of her passbook and further alleged that an amount of Rs. 32,000/- had been debited from her account as “cash withdrawal by cheque paid to Ganesh Kumar at Branch Code 01431”. The complainant alleged that the aforesaid transaction was never done by her and she had not even received any cheque book from the opposite party No.1 and she made repeated requests to the official of the opposite party No.1 to show her cheque which she had issued to whom person and she wants to know who has with drawn the amount from bank so she wants to see the CCTV footage of the premises of the opposite party No.1 for see the person who encash the above cheque but opposite party No.1 had not heed towards the request of the complainant. In this regard, complainant also served a legal notice to the opposite party No.1 as well as Banking Ombudsman. And as per the allegations of complainant, opposite party No.1 had given the payment of Rs. 32,000/- to one Ganesh Kumar unnecessarily after the forged signatures of the complainant by above said Ganesh Kumar with the help of opposite party No.1. Hence the complainant filed the present complaint and complainant has further prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to credit the bank account of complainant with the amount of Rs. 32,000/- and opposite parties may also be directed to pay Rs. 5,00,000/- on account of mental tension and harassment.
2. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared through counsel and filed their written reply by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is neither maintainable nor the same in present form. The answering party most respectfully states and submits that the present Complaint titled by the complainant is gross abuse of process of law, and is absolutely false, frivolous and vexatious thereby making it illegal thus the said complaint is filed without any cause of action, the same is liable to be dismissed. According to opposite parties, from a bare perusal of the contents of the present complaint and without admitting the contents of the same in the stated manner, it has been gathered that the complainant has not approached the Hon'ble Commission with clean hands and has intentionally and knowingly concealed & suppressed the true and material facts, as such, the complainant is not at all legally entitled to any relief from this Hon'ble Commission and the complaint deserves to be dismissed with special cost. The present complainant is creator of her own fate as upon she herself issued a bearer cheque No. 918869 dated 8/8/2022 to the person under her signature. The said cheque was duly encashed by respondent bank after taking due diligence. The concerned bank official duly identified and compared the signature of the complainant signed upon the bearer cheque and from the signature specimen saved with the bank record. Moreover the signature of the complainant is as identical to the other bank deposit receipt. As per version of opposite parties, the present complainant herself has applied for the cheque book requisition in the branch on 9/12/2020 and the respondent bank issued the cheque book to complainant at her respective address mentioned in the passbook but it was returned back to State Bank of India Branch Hargobind Nagar, Phagwara as undelivered. On 20/2/2021, complainant herself visited to the branch for collecting her new cheque book from the said branch of respondent bank and acknowledged this fact by putting her signature on the cheque book issue registered. It is significant to mention here that there was no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties bank and as a chief manager of the concern branch and other senior officials took the cognizance of the said transactions of complainant and allow her to see CCTV video of the concerned person who encashed the bearer cheque no. 918869 dated 8/8/2022. As per opposite parties version, the present complainant does not create any relation of consumer or service provider as the complainant issued one bearer cheque to the Ganesh Kumar with her signature and the said person encashed such cheque on 8/8/2022. The respondent bank has acted as per the rules and regulation of Baking Regulation Act 1949 and guidelines of Reserve bank of India. Moreover the opposite party-bank also provided the detail of said cheque book and upon the request of the complainant further stopped the payment upon the said cheque book. It is pertinent to mention here that copy of CCTV recording can only be provided to the police official/authorised person so opposite party also advised the complainant to file the police complaint against Ganesh Kumar but inspite of taking the appropriate remedy, the complainant filed this false and frivolous complaint against the opposite party without any cause of action. There was no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties- bank.
3. The complainant not filed any rejoinder.
4. To prove her case, complainant submitted affidavit alongwith documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C3.
5. On the other hand, opposite parties submitted affidavit Ex. OPW1/A alongwith documents Ex. OP1 to Ex. OP8.
6. We have heard the counsel for the parties and also gone through the written arguments made by learned counsel for the complainant and given our thoughtful consideration to it.
7. As per the allegations of complainant, an amount of Rs. 32,000/- had been debited from the account of complainant in the bank account with opposite party No.1 as cash withdrawal through cheque to one Ganesh Kumar by opposite party No.1. It is further alleged that she never received any cheque book or bearer cheque book from the bank i.e. opposite party No.1 but after examining the evidence of the opposite parties as per Ex. OP6 which is the register maintained by opposite party No.1 endorsed the cheque book issued to the complainant alongwith her signatures at the time of receiving the cheque book from opposite party No.1 but the complainant did not file any rejoinder nor rebut the evidence of the opposite parties which clearly proves that complainant received the alleged cheque book from opposite party No.1 and issued the signed cheque book to some person. The complainant did not file any complaint before the Police Authorities in the above matter as advised by opposite party No.1. As per the above said discussion and evidence produced by both the parties, we do not find any merit in the complaint and opposite parties have not committed any deficiency in service towards the complainant, so the complaint is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
8. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated
30/10/2024
S. Kanwar Jaswant Singh Rajita Sareen Rajesh Bhatia
Member Member President
