| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BATHINDA C.C. No.273 of 11-10-2019 Decided on : 25-05-2022 M/s P.L. Sales Corporation, Gali Gurdawara Singh Sabha, Bathinda, through its Prop. Sh.Prem Lal aged about 76 years S/o Sh.Parkash Chand R/o # 4230, Gali Gurudawara Singh Sabha Backside Kikkar Bazaar, Bathinda, through his special power of attorney Jatinder Kumar S/o Sh.Prem Lal S/o Sh.Parkash Chand R/o # 4230, Gali Gurudawara Singh Sabha Backside Kikkar Bazaar, Bathinda. ........Complainant Versus State Bank of India, Regional Office, Bhagu Road, Bathinda. through its Regional Manager. The Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Main Branch, Amrik Singh Road, Bathinda.
.......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 QUORUM Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President. Sh.Shivdev Singh, Member. Smt. Paramjeet Kaur, Member Present For the complainant : Ms.Reema Rani, Advocate. For opposite parties : Ex-parte. ORDER Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President The complainant M/s P.L. Sales Corporation through its Prop. Sh.Prem Lal through his special power of attorney Jatinder Kumar (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Now C.P. Act, 2019, here-in after referred to as 'Act') before this Forum (Now Commission) against State Bank of India and other (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties). Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that he is running his business under the name and style of M/S P.L.Sales Corporation for his livelihood, but due to his old age, he is carrying on his business with the help of his son. It is alleged that the complainant has maintained CC account bearing No.30751745048 with opposite party No.2 and one swipe machine has also been installed in his shop for himself and his family livelihood. It is further alleged that on 10.7.2019, transactions of Rs.97,700/- were made on swipe machine installed by opposite party No.2 at the shop of the complainant. The receipt/slip generated on the swipe machine depicts 'this transaction to be successful'. On 11.7.2019 at about 10.00 A.M, some clarifications were sought by the State Bank of India regarding this machine from the complainant through telephone No.022-71980733. He clarified the situation and told that the entries are genuine. On the same day i.e. 11.7.2019, he also requested opposite party No.2 telephonically and e-mail to release the amount and informed about the telephone call he received from Mumbai. Thereafter on 11.7.2019, one bank official was deputed to his shop, he contacted Mumbai office and gave the clarification of the entries, but the payment was not credited. The next morning i.e. on 12.7.2019, the complainant through e-mail requested State Bank of India for the credit of the amount. He also wrote a letter to opposite party No.2 that due to non-credit of amount, if any cheque issued by him does not pass, he should not be responsible for it. He submitted the slips of the machine to opposite party No.2 alongwith the identification of card holder used in the machine. It is further alleged that on 18.7.2019, the complainant again wrote a letter to opposite party No.1 and in response to this letter, he received the letter dated 19.7.2019 vide which opposite party No.1 asked him to submit the certain documents in order to establish the genuineness of transactions in question. In compliance of the letter, he submitted all the requisite documents, but no heed was paid to his requests. He also got served a legal notice dated 15.8.2019 to opposite parties by way of registered post dated 16.8.2019 through his counsel, but to no effect. It is further alleged that the complainant feels humiliation by the act of opposite parties. Two cheques issued by him were dishonoured by opposite party No.1 for the reasons 'Funds Insufficient' vide cheque return memo dated 17.7.2019 and two cheques were dishonoured for the reasons 'Exceed Arrangements' vide cheque return memo dated 7.8.2019. Due to this, the complainant has suffered from mental agony, physical and financial loss. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has filed this complaint with the prayer for directions to opposite parties to pay Rs.99,360/- alongwith up to date interest @ 18% per annum i.e. Rs.32,788/- being the cheque amount and Rs.2360/- amount deducted by opposite parties on account of dishonour of four cheques and pay compensation/liquidated damages to the tune of Rs.50,000/- for harassment, mental tension, agony in addition to litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.11,000/- or any other additional/consequential or alternative relief. Notice of the complaint was issued to opposite parties, but none appeared on behalf of opposite parties. As such, ex-parte proceedings were taken against them. Complainant was afforded opportunities to produce evidence. In support of his claim, the complainant has tendered into evidence photocopy of special power of attorney, (Ex.C1); photocopy of receipt, (Ex.C2); photocopy of e-mails, (Ex.C3); photocopy of letter, (Ex.C4); photocopy of reply to letter, (Ex.C5); photocopies of legal notice, (Ex.C6 and Ex.C8); postal receipts, (Ex.C7 and Ex.C9); photocopies of cheques, (Ex.C10, Ex.C11, Ex.C14 and Ex.C15); photocopies of cheque return memos, (Ex.C12, Ex.C13, Ex.C16 and Ex.C17); photocopy of account statement of stock, (Ex.C18); photocopy of account statement, (Ex.C19 and Ex.C21); affidavit of Jatinder Kumar dated 16.10.2019, (Ex.C20) and closed the evidence. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and gone through the file carefully. Learned counsel for complainant has reiterated their stand as taken in his complaint as detailed above. We have given careful consideration to these submissions. Admitted facts are that on 10.7.2019, the transactions of Rs.97,700/- were made from the swipe machine installed by opposite party No.2 at the shop of the complainant, but this amount was not credited to the account of the complainant, but the status of this transaction was successful. The receipt/slip, (Ex.C2) proves this fact. The complainant has also sent e-mail dated 11.7.2022, (Ex.C3) to opposite party No.2 for release of his amount, but till date nothing has been paid to him. The complainant has placed on file one letter dated 19.7.2019, (Ex.C5) in which opposite party No.2 has admitted the transactions of Rs.97,700/- and given reeason for not crediting this amount that 'multiple transaction through single debit card within a short span of time, put these transaction in suspicious category and a hold for the transaction amount is automatically put on the merchant amount, to safeguard the customer interest' and asked the complainant to submit some documents. As per complainant, he has already submitted all these documents to opposite parties, but till date no amount has been credited in his account. Moreover opposite parties have not come forward to contest the complaint of the complainant. Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the version of the complainant. Opposite parties have no right to keep the hard earned money of the complainant. As such, this Commission is of considered opinion that there is deficiency in services on the part of opposite parties. As per complainant, his four cheques, (Ex.C10, Ex.C11, Ex.C14 and Ex.C15) were dishonoured by opposite party No.1 for the reasons 'Funds Insufficient' and 'Exceed Arrangements' vide cheque return memos dated 17.7.2019 and 7.8.2019. The dispute regarding transactions of Rs.97,700/- were raised from 10.7.2019. As such, the complainant was having knowledge of this fact that debit amount was on hold for his account. Despite this, he issued/submitted his cheques after 10.7.2019 i.e. in the months of July and August. Therefore, he is not liable for any reliefs with regard to dishonour of his cheques. For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is partly accepted with Rs.10,000/- as cost and compensation against opposite parties. Opposite parties are directed to refund an amount of Rs.97,700/- alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of swiping of machine i.e. 10.7.2019 till date of payment, to the complainant. The compliance of this order be made jointly and severally by opposite parties within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record. Announced:- 25-05-2022 (Kanwar Sandeep Singh) President (Shivdev Singh) Member (Paramjeet Kaur) Member
| |
