| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BATHINDA C.C. No. 156 of 25-06-2019 Decided on : 13-05-2022 Gurbans Singh aged about 45 years S/o Swaran Singh R/o Village Nathana, Tehsil & District Bathinda. ........Complainant Versus The Bathinda Central Co-op Bank Ltd., Branch Nathana, District Bathinda, through its Branch Manager Amininder Singh, Branch Manager, The Bathinda Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Nathana, District Bathinda.
.......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 QUORUM Sh. Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President Sh. Shivdev Singh, Member Smt. Paramjeet Kaur, Member Present For the complainant : Sh. Kuldeep Singh, Advocate. For opposite parties : Sh. Amanpal Singh, Advocate, for OP No. 1. OP No. 2 not summoned. ORDER Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President The complainant Gurbans Singh (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 The Bathinda Central Co-op Bank Ltd., and another (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties). Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that the complainant is permanent resident of village Nathana District Bathinda and is member of Nathana Multipurpose Co-operaivo Agricultural Service Society, village Nathana District Bathinda. The complainant is holding A/c No. 696 with said society and is also having account No. 022634038100908 with the opposite parties. It is alleged that the complainant withdrew a sum of Rs.60,000/- from his above said account maintained with the opposite parties through cheque No.000678 dated 28.05.2019 and the opposite parties paid Rs.60,000/- to the complainant i.e. one bundle of 100 notes of the denomination of Rs.500/- each and 20 other notes of the denomination of Rs.500/- each. The complainant kept the above said amount in his house in Almira. On 30.05.2019, when complainant visited ICICI Bank, village Kalyan Sukha Branch to deposit the said amount, the concerned cashier of the ICICI Bank Village Kalyan sukha took out one note of Rs.500/- from the bundle of 100 notes of Rs.500/- provided by the opposite parties bank to complainant and proclaimed that the same is fake currency note. The complainant requested the above said cashier of ICICI Bank that the said amount has been withdrawn by him from The Bathinda Central Co-Op. Bank Limited, but the concerned cashier refused to accept the said currency note and proclaimed that the same is fake currency. The complainant further alleged that thereafter he visited the opposite parties and requested that the note given by them on 28-5-2019 is fake currency note but instead of paying any heed to the requests of the complainant, the opposite parties started misbehaving with the complainant by using abusing and insultive language in the presence of the staff of bank and the customers present in the bank due which the complainant felt harassed, humiliated and insulted. Thereafter the complainant approached the opposite parties with a genuine complaint as the said fake currency note was taken out/removed from the bundle of 100 notes given by the opposite parties to the complainant on 28.05.2019. Complainant bonafidely requested the opposite parties to replace the same with new one currency note but to no effect rather the concerned Branch Manager insulted the complainant. The complainant also got served legal notice upon the opposite parties, but the opposite parties neither replied to the said legal notice nor compensated the complainant in any manner. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to replace fake currency note of Rs. 500/- with new genuine currency note and pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for mental agony, pains and sufferings in addition to Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses. Since both the opposite parties were same, opposite party No. 2 was not summoned. Upon notice, opposite party No. 1 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply raising legal objections that complaint is not maintainable in its present form. That the complainant has no locus standi or cause of action to file the complaint. That the complainant is estopped from filing the present complaint by his own act and conduct, admission, omission, acquiescence and waiver. That this Commission has no jurisdiction to try and decide the complaint as intricate questions of fact and law are involved which require elaborate oral as well as documentary evidence which is not possible through summary procedure. That the complainant has not approached this Commission with clean hands and that the complaint is totally false, frivolous and vexatious. to the knowledge of the complainant. On merits, it has been pleaded that the complainant received the amount of Rs.60,000/- after carefully counting the notes and checking the same and never raised any objection regarding any note to be fake as alleged. The opposite parties never provided any fake currency note of Rs.500/- to the complainant as alleged rather all the currency notes were duly checked by the Cashier of the opposite parties as well as by the complainant at the time of withdrawal of the amount of Rs.60,000/- and further more, as per version of the complainant himself, the complainant came to the opposite parties after three days of the withdrawal of the amount and as such the opposite parties are not liable to change the said currency note allegedly returned to the complainant by the officials of the ICICI Bank. The opposite party No. 1 denied that any such fake currency note was there in the bundle of 100 notes of Rs.500/- given by the opposite parties to the complainant. Further more, the complainant was at liberty to change the note at the time of withdrawal of the amount, if he was suspecting any note to be in-genuine or fake or torn etc., but after leaving the bank premises, the complainant is not entitled to the change of the note. After controverting all other averments of the complainant, the opposite party No. 1 prayed for dismissal of complaint. In support of his complaint, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit (Ex. C-7) and documents (Ex. C-2 to Ex. C-6). In order to rebut the evidence of complainant, opposite party No. 1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Maninder Singh (Ex OP-1/1). The learned counsel for the parties reiterated their stand as taken in their respective pleadings. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. In the case in hand, the complainant has alleged that he withdrew Rs. 60,000/- from opposite party Bank through cheque out of which one currency note of Rs. 500/- was found fake. It is admitted fact of the complainant that he withdrew amount of Rs. 60,000/- on 28-5-2019 and thereafter he visited the opposite parties after three days and complained about fake currency note. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that fake currency note, if any, was actually given by the opposite parties to the complainant. The complainant has not placed on file any evidence except his affidavit, to prove his version. The complainant has not even examined the cashier of ICICI Bank to prove his version. All the official acts performed by the public servants in discharge of their public duties are presumed to be as per law, if not proved otherwise. In this case, complainant has not even brought on file any expert opinion to the effect that the said currency note is not genuine. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence, version of the complainant cannot be believed. The complainant/general public is bound to leave the cash counter/bank premises after checking currency notes given by the bank and thereafter, bank cannot be held liable if any currency note was found fake or torn. Thus, this Commission is of the considered opinion that complainant failed to prove his version by leading any cogent and convincing evidence. Resultantly, this complaint fails and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to covid pandemic and heavy pendency of cases.
Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record. Announced : 13-05-2022 (Kanwar Sandeep Singh) President (Shivdev Singh) Member (Paramjeet Kaur) Member
| |
