Punjab

Faridkot

CC/19/179

Manoj Bansal - Complainant(s)

Versus

State Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

Amit Kumar Mittal

20 Apr 2022

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, FARIDKOT

 

Complaint No. :       179 of 2019

Date of Institution :   25.07.2019

            Date of Decision :      20.04.2022

1. Manoj Bansal aged about 38 years, s/o Mahadev Parsad c/o Proprietor Apna Cycle, Jaitu Road, Near Red Light Chowk, Kotkapura, Tehsil Kotkapura, District Faridkot.
2. M/s Apna Cycle through its Proprietor Manoj Bansal, Jaitu Road, Near Red Light Chow, Kotkapura, Tehsil Kotkapura, District Faridkot.

.....Complainant

Versus

 

1. State Bank of India, Branch Railway Road, Kotkapura through its Manager.
2. Manager, State Bank of India, Branch Railway Road, Kotkapura, Tehsil Kotkapura, District Faridkot.

..........OPs

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

(Now, Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019)

 

Quorum:     Smt Param Pal Kaur, Member.

                     Sh Vishav Kant Garg, Member.

cc no.179 of 2019

Present:       Sh Amit Mittal, Ld Counsel for Complainant,

 Sh Ranjit Singh Kakkar, Ld Counsel for OPs,

(ORDER) 

( Param Pal Kaur, Member)

                                       

                                      Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OPs for deficiency in service and for seeking directions to them to pay Rs.4,00,000/-on account of compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him besides litigation expenses of Rs.55,000/-.

2                                The brief facts of the present complaint are that complainant holds an account bearing no. 30684306550 with OP-1 Bank and he issued a cheque bearing no.864823 worth Rs.49,818/-in favour of Amar Cycle Works on 31.05.2019 and at the time of issuance of said cheque, there was sufficient balance in his account and complainant assured about this fact to Amar Cycle Works and on assurance given by complainant, Amar Cycle Works presented the said cheque with his bank Punjab National Bank, Branch Main Bazar, Faridkot, but OPs bank dishonoured the cheque issued by complainant and returned the same to Amar Cycle Works, Faridkot alongwith memo dated 03.06.2019 with remarks ‘Refer to Drawer’. OPs dishonoured the cheque issued by complainant without any reason and this act of OPs has lowered the reputation of complainant before Amar Cycle Works and also in the eyes of his

cc no.179 of 2019

friends and relatives as Amar Cycle told about dishonouring of his cheque to all his friends and relatives. Complainant approached Ops and asked about the reason for dishonouring his cheque, to which Ops gave no reply. All this act of OPs has caused great harassment and mental torture to complainant, which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Complainant has prayed for compensation to the tune of Rs.4 lacs for harassment and mental agony suffered by him besides litigation expenses of Rs.55,000/-. Hence, the complaint.

3                                                        The complaint was admitted after hearing and notice was issued to OPs vide order dated 31.07.2019 to appear in person or through representative to file reply to the complaint.

4                                                 OPs appeared in Commission through Counsel after being served and filed written statement wherein asserted that account of complainant is a cash credit account and he has not been operating the  account and therefore, credit facilities were withdrawn and it was being used as current account. It is brought before the Forum that there is simple matter of maintaining balance in the account and the Cheque Transaction System, which came into force on 11.02.2019. Cheques submitted in any bank are scanned and sent to Centralized Clearing Processing Centre at Chandigarh and after seeing the image, same is cleared between 6.30 am to 7 am and

cc no.179 of 2019

message regarding clearance or dishonour is sent to person issuing the cheque and in case of dishonour, if account holder wants to get cleared the cheque, he must deposit the amount before 12.30 p.m. in his account and is further required to request the bank official to pass the cheque, which complainant failed to do. Physical cheque remains with the bank to which it is presented and in present case, cheque presented by Amar Cycle Works is with Punjab National Bank. On 30.05.2019, amount of Rs.92,195.34 was lying available in his account, he remitted Rs.35,576/-to Samunder Industries and Rs.34,569 to Vijay Vallabh Cycle and after these two entries, amount of Rs.22,048/-was left in his account and when cheque in question was presented for clearance, it was dishonoured due to insufficient balance and Rs.177 were debited from his account and when complainant came to know about this dishonour, he deposited Rs.90,000/-in to his account. Answering OPs have no reasons to disclose when complainant had directly received the message from CCPC and he was fully aware of the reason for dishonouring of his cheque and that is why he deposited Rs.90,000/-into his account to honour the payment of cheque. Cheque issued by complainant was dishonoured due to his own fault and there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OPs. All the other allegations levelled by complainant are totally denied being wrong and incorrect and prayer for dismissal of complaint with costs is made.

 

cc no.179 of 2019

5                                                 Parties wanted to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings and proper opportunity was given to them. Ld Counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C-1, statement of account Ex C-2, copy of cheque dated 31.05.2019 issued by complainant in favour of Amar Cycle Works Ex C-3, copy of Return Memo Outward Clearing –(CTS) dated 03.06.2019 Ex C-4, copy of Letter of Arrangement Ex C-5, statement of account for the period from 18.02.2009 to 01.03.2017 as C-6 and then, closed his evidence.

6                                   In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Counsel for OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Sanju Banga, Chief Manager, State Bank of India Ex OP-1 and then, also closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.

7                                            We have heard the learned counsel for complainant as well as opposite parties and have very carefully perused the affidavits & documents placed on record file by respective parties.

 8                                      By perusal of affidavit, evidence and documents placed on record by respective parties and from the careful perusal of record, it is observed that case of the complainant is that he issued a cheque for Rs.49,818/-in favour of Amar Cycle Works on 31.05.2019 and at the time of

cc no.179 of 2019

issuance of said cheque, there was sufficient balance in his account, when said cheque was present in Punjab National Bank, Branch Main Bazar, Faridkot, OPs bank dishonoured the same and PNB returned the cheque to Amar Cycle Works, Faridkot alongwith memo with remarks ‘Refer to Drawer’. Due to this act of dishonouring the cheque by OPs without any reason, lowered the position of complainant before Amar Cycle Works and also in the market. Grievance of the complainant is that act of OPs in dishonouring his cheque without any specific reason, is a trade mal practice and it amounts to deficiency in service. Complainant has suffered huge harassment and mental agony due to this and he has prayed for accepting the present complaint. On the other hand. In reply, plea taken by OPs is that account of complainant is a cash credit account but he has not been operating the same  and therefore, credit facilities were withdrawn and it was being used as current account. As per OPs, complainant does not maintain the required condition of maintaining minimum balance. On 03.06.2019 only Rs.22,048/-were left in his account after clearing his two cheques and when cheque in question was presented for clearance, it was dishonoured due to insufficient balance and Rs.177 were debited from his account and when complainant came to know about this dishonour, he deposited Rs.90,000/-in to his account. Answering OPs have no reasons to disclose when complainant had directly received the message from CCPC and he was fully aware of the reason for dishonouring of his cheque and that is why he deposited

cc no.179 of 2019

Rs.90,000/-into his account to honour the payment of cheque. Cheque issued by complainant was dishonoured due to his own fault and there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OPs. All the other allegations levelled by complainant are totally denied being wrong and incorrect and prayer for dismissal of complaint with costs is made.

9                                                         Document Ex C-2 is copy of statement of bank account book of complainant that proves the pleadings of complainant that on 03.06.2019, when cheque was presented for payment, an amount of Rs1,11,871.54 was lying in his credit. It shows that earlier Rs.21,871.54 were there in his balance and then, on same day, Rs.90,000/-was deposited by him and after depositing Rs.90,000/- in his account by complainant, amount of Rs.1,11,871.54 was available in his account. Ex C-3 is copy of cheque dated 31.05.2019 for Rs.49,818/-issued by complainant in the name of Amar Cycle Works. Ex C-4 is copy of Return Memo Outward Clearing (CTS) that bears the comment ‘Refer to drawer’. Careful perusal of ExC-5 shows that cash credit limit of account of complainant is Rs.8 lacs against primary security of stock and immovable security of his shop bearing no.B-5/427 to 429. Through his affidavit Ex C-1, complainant has reiterated his pleadings and has prayed for imparting justice. Complainant has produced sufficient and cogent evidence and all documents placed on record by him are fully authentic. These documents are

cc no.179 of 2019

beyond any doubt and even OPs have no reply to justify the same. Moreover, plea taken by OPs that complainant does not maintain the required condition of maintaining minimum balance has no legs to stand upon in the light of his account statement Ex C-2 that itself speaks out that there was a balance of Rs.1,11,871.54 in his account on 03.06.2019 i.e on the date when said cheque was dishonoured by OPs. Therefore, act of OPs in dishonouring the cheque issued by  complainant in spite of the fact that there was sufficient balance in his account, is inappropriate and it has caused harassment and mental agony to him. All this amounts to deficiency in service.

10                                                Ld Counsel for complainant further brought before the Commission that as per OPs if cash credit limit of Rs. 8 lacs for account of complainant was not revived and his drawing power was zero, then, why did they honour cheque no.550053 and debited Rs.42,705.90 from his account when there was only Rs.32,348.17 in his credit. OPs further cleared a cheque and debited Rs.11,807.90 from his account, when credit balance in respect of account of complainant was Rs.10,951.33. Thus, plea taken by ld counsel for OPs that drawing limit pertaining to account of complainant was zero, has no legs to stand upon as per statement of account furnished by complainant. Careful perusal of previous statements of account reveals that when the credit was less, the bank used to pass the cheque as the limit was

 

cc no.179 of 2019

there, but in plea they are saying that drawing power was zero and complainant used to get benefit of limit. As if they have done it in previous cases of drawing from limit, it could also be done this time, but the bank deviated from practice providing limit assistance to the complainant and bounced its cheque.

11                                             In the light of above discussion and keeping in view the documents placed on record and arguments made by respective parties, we are of considered opinion that act of OPs was not appropriate in dishonouring the cheque of complainant despite the fact that his account was having cash credit limit of 8 lacs. We are of the considered opinion that due to this act of OPs, complainant has suffered huge harassment and it amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. Hence, in these circumstances, present complaint is hereby allowed and OPs are directed to pay Rs.177/-debited by them on account of dishonoured cheque. Bank is liable for deficiency in service and trade mal practice. As such, complainant is entitled for compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him. Therefore, OPs are ordered to pay Rs 5,000/- to complainant on account of compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him and Rs 2,000/-for litigation expenses. Compliance of this order be made within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which,

cc no.179 of 2019

complainant shall be entitled to proceed against OPs under Section 71 and 72 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost as per law. File be consigned to the record room.

Announced in Open Commission

Dated : 20.04.2022

(Vishav Kant Garg)       (Param Pal Kaur)                        

Member                          Member

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

     cc no.179 of 2019

Manoj Bansal      Vs    State Bank of India

 

Present:       Sh Amit Mittal, Ld Counsel for Complainant,

 Sh Ranjit Singh Kakkar, Ld Counsel for OPs,

                       Arguments heard. Vide our separate detailed order of even date, complaint in hand is hereby allowed. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost as per law. File be consigned to the record room.

Announced in Open Commission

Dated : 20.04.2022

(Vishav Kant Garg)       (Param Pal Kaur)                        

Member                          Member