Punjab

Sangrur

CC/500/2018

Jinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

State Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Davinder Sharda

06 Jun 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .

 

                                                                        Complaint No.  500

 Instituted on:    03.12.2018

                                                                        Decided on:      06.06.2023

Jinder Singh son of Sh. Kapoor Singh, owner/proprietor Jinder Sanitary Store, Patiala Road, Opp. Goyal Motors, Mangwal, Tehsil and Distt. Sangrur.

                                                          …. Complainant.     

                                                 Versus

State Bank of India, Main Branch, Banasar Bagh Road, Patiala Gate, Sangrur Tehsil and Distt. Sangrur through its Branch Manager..

             ….Opposite party 

For the complainant        : Shri Harish Sharma, Adv.        

For the OP                  : Shri Ashe Goyal, Advocate

Quorum                                      

Jot Naranjan Singh Gill, President

Sarita Garg, Member

Kanwaljeet Singh, Member

                            

ORDER

JOT NARANJAN SINGH GILL, PRESIDENT

1.             Complainant has approached this Forum/Commission alleging inter-alia that he is running a shop in the name of M/s. Jinder Sanitary Store at Patiala Road, Opposite Goyal Motors, Mangwal Tehsil and Distt. Sangrur. Further case of the complainant is that he is maintaining a bank account number 31641602155 with the OP. Further it is averred that the complainant purchased some material from M/s. Prabh Dayal Om Parkash, Village Baran, Sirhand Road, Patiala and for the same complainant issued cheque number 528746 dated 31.12.2016 of Rs.10,000/- to the said firm.  Further case of the complainant is that the said firm is having account number 01162320001352 with HDFC Bank Ltd. Dharampura Bazar, Patiala and the said firm presented the cheque in his bank for encashment, but he cheque was dishonored on account of ‘signature differ’ vide memo dated 2.1.2017. As per the accounts statement of the complainant, there is cross entry of debit and credit regarding the said cheque on 2.1.2017. The above said cheque was returned under CTS clearing without any reason although the cheque was bearing correct signatures of the complainant, but no message was conveyed to the complainant. Thereafter the complainant received back the above said cheque from the firm M/s. Prabh Dayal Om Parkash and the payment of Rs.10,000/- was made to them in cash.

2.             In the present case, grievance of the complainant is that the OP has debited the amount of Rs.10,000/- against cheque number 528746 dated 31.12.2016 to the account of the complainant on 4.2.2017, whereas there is no occasion for the same as the cheque in original is lying with the complainant.  As such, the complainant approached the OP and requested them to credit the account of the complainant with an amount of Rs.10,000/-, but of no avail.  Thus, the complainant was constrained to approach this Forum/Commission with a request for directing the OP to credit the account of the complainant with  a sum of Rs.10,000/- alongwith interest and further to pay Rs.15,000/- on account of mental agony, pain, harassment and an amount of Rs.15000/- on account of physical harassment and further an amount of Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.

3.             Upon being served, the OP appeared through Advocate Shri Ashi Goyal and filed written response raising preliminary objections that the complainant has not come to the Forum/Commission with clean hands, that the complaint is not maintainable and that the complaint is false, frivolous, misconceived and vexatious in nature and has been filed against the OP with the sole intention to injure the interest and reputation of the public institution. On merits, it has been admitted that the complainant had issued the cheque bearing number 528746 dated 31.12.2016 for Rs.10,000/- and the same was debited to the account of the complainant and must have been credited in the account of the firm i.e. M/s. Prabh Dayal Om Parkash. Thus, it is further averred that the whole mystery about the debit and credit of the amount of Rs.10000/- can be resolved only with the production of statement of accounts of account number 01162320001352 and any deficiency in service on the part of the OP has been denied.  Lastly, the OP has prayed that the complaint be dismissed with special costs.

4.             The learned counsel for the parties produced their respective evidence before this Commission in the shape of documents and affidavits.

5.             We have gone through the pleadings put in by both the parties along with their supporting documents with their valuable assistance.

6.             In order to prove his case the complainant has placed on record Ex.C-1 photostat copy of the disputed cheque, Ex.C-2 copy of memo dated 2.1.2017, Ex.C-3 copy of bank statement of complainant, Ex.C-4 copy of statement of M/s.Prabh Dayal Om Parkash, Ex.C-5 self attested affidavit of Jinder Singh complainant and closed evidence. On the other hand, the OP has produced  Ex.OP/1 affidavit of Rajneesh Kumar, Chief Manager of the OP and closed evidence.

7.             It is not in dispute between the parties that the complainant is maintaining a bank account number 31641602155 with the OP bank. Further it is not in dispute that the complainant had issued cheque number 528746 dated 31.12.2016 of Rs.10,000/- to the said firm and  that the said firm is having account number 01162320001352 with the HDFC Bank Ltd. Dharampura Bazar, Patiala and the said firm presented the cheque in his bank for encashment.  Though the OP bank debited the amount of Rs.10,000/- in the account of complainant on 2.1.2017 and was credited on the same date  and further on 4.2.2017 the OP bank debited the amount of Rs.10,000/- to the account of the complainant, whereas the original cheque was in the custody of the complainant and there was no reason for the OP bank to debit the account of the complainant.  We have also perused Ex.C-2 copy of memo dated 2.1.2017, which clearly reveals that the cheque in question was returned under CTS clearing due to ‘drawee signature differs’.  Further Ex.C-3 which is a copy of bank account statement of the complainant clearly shows that the cheque in question was debited on 2.1.2017 and credited on the same date.  Thereafter on 4.2.2017 the cheque number 528746 was again debited to the account of the complainant even without presenting of the cheque, whereas the cheque in question was in the possession of the complainant.

8.             Even during the present proceedings the OP on 27.3.2019 filed an application for production of statement of accounts of M/s. Prabh Dayal Om Parkash, which was allowed and the complainant was directed to produce the same. The complainant produced the bank statement of M/s. Prabh Dayal Om Parkash, Baran, Patiala of his  account number 01162320001352 of HDFC Bank Limited, Sirhind Road, Patiala, which clearly shows that the amount of Rs.10,000/- against cheque number 528746 was credited in his account on 31.12.2016 and debited with the same amount on 2.1.2017 on account of drawer signature differs. But a bare perusal of it nowhere show that the amount of Rs.10,000/- was ever credited to the account of M/s. Prabh Dayal Om Parkash on 4.2.2017.  In the circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the OP has miserably failed to establish on record that cheque number 528746 was ever presented to the OP bank for encashment and without any reason the OP has debited the amount of Rs.10,000/- to the account of the complainant on 4.2.2017.  The cheque in question was in the possession of the complainant and on 10.10.2022, the complainant appeared in person and the same was shown to this Commission. Accordingly, we find it to be  a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of the OP Bank.

9.             As a result of the above discussion, the present complaint is allowed and opposite party is directed to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.10,000/- alongwith interest @ 7% per annum from 4.2.2017 till its realization. Further, we direct the OP to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment and further an amount of Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. Compliance of the order be made within the period of 60 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order.

10.            The complaint could not be decided within the statutory time period due to heavy pendency of cases.

11.            Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance. 

                                Pronounced.

 

                                June 6, 2023.