Haryana

Ambala

CC/70/2022

Prashant Ahluwalia - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager State Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

02 May 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

Complaint case no.	:	70 of 2022
Date of Institution	:	02.03.2022
Date of decision	:	02.05.2023.

Prashant Ahluwalia S/o Shri Anil Kumar Ahluwalia resident of 64 Navneet Nagar, Ambala City

          ……. Complainant.

                                                Versus

1. The Manager State Bank of India Polytechnic Br Ambala City

2. The Post Master Bus Stand Ambala City

3. The Supdt. Post Office Ambala Cantt

4. The CPMG the Mall Ambala Cantt

5. The DG (Post) Dak Bhawan Sansad Marg New Delhi-01

….…. Opposite Parties

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                             Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

          Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.           

 

Present:      Shri Anil Kumar, Authorized Representative of the complainant.

                             Shri U.S. Chauhan, Advocate, counsel for OP No.1

                   Shri Anupam Sharma, Advocate, counsel for OPs No.2 to 5.        

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

1.                Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’), praying for issuance of directions to them to compensate the complainant for not giving intimation regarding dishonor of his cheque and also to take the disciplinary action against the erring officers.

2.             Brief facts of the case are that the complainant is having a saving Bank Account No.20022781013 with OP No.1 and issued a cheque bearing No.464909 dated 13/3/2021 in the sum of Rs.1,50,000/- issued in favour of OP No.2 for crediting the said amount in PPF A/C No. of the complainant mentioned on the said cheque. OP No.2 presented the cheque through CTS system for clearance to the banking authorities and the same was dishonored with the observation “signature differ”. The said cheque was returned by the Postal Department Ambala Cantt. (CTS) on 16/3/2021 to OP No.2 for further necessary action. As per PM digitalization programme OPs No.1 and 2 failed in their duties to communicate the message on mobile phone of the complainant qua dishonor of the said cheque. OP No.2 failed to abide the procedure laid down Cheque system in Post Office Saving Account POSB (CBS) Manual Para 7.5 which says that cheque returned by the Bank as dishonored with an objection memo should be returned to the depositor by ordinary post. The date of return of the cheque will be noted at the foot of the duplicate copy of list in the place provided for the purpose and in the pay-in-slip. Service Charges at the rate of Rs.50/- (Now Rs100+18% GST) for dishonored cheque will be levied."  On the other hand, the cheque in question was lying with OP No.2 till 12.04.2021, which came to the knowledge of the complainant when he went to update his pass book. OP No.2 also charged Rs.118/- as service charges and handed over the cheque to complainant. Matter was taken up on 15.04.2021 with OPs No.1 and 2, as to why no message was sent to the complainant on his mobile number in the matter but to no avail.   OP No.2  furnished reply through Supdt. Post Office Ambala Cantt vide letter No. SB/MISC.-07/2021-22 dt. 05.05.2021 that intimation was given to the complainant vide letter dated 17/3/2021 issued by  OP No.2, whereas, on the other hand, no such letter was ever received by the complainant from OP No.2.  However, following  short comings were found in letter dated 17/3/21:-

a) File No & Date of issue is not found on letter.

b) Letter was not issued as per SOP posb(CBS) Manual rule 7.5 on the subject.

c) It was not the Office copy as it did not bear File Page No, Mark 0/0 not O/C.

d) Office stamp was found affixed on it, meaningthereby that it is individual copy.

It appears that the OPs are trying to save their skin on vague grounds. The act and conduct of OPs have caused financial loss of interest to the tune of Rs.7,42,876/- to the complainant.Hence this complaint.

3.           Upon notice, OP No.1 appeared and filed written version wherein it raised preliminary objections to the effect that the complaint filed by the complainant is false, frivolous and filed with malafide intention and based on wrong information and not maintainable; the complainant has not come with the clean hands and has suppressed the material facts from this Commission;  there is no cause of action against OP No.1 etc. On merits, it has been stated that the main grouse of the complainant is that the cheque issued by him got dishonored due to difference in signature and the same was not intimated on time by OP No.2 due to which he suffered a loss of interest. The complainant in the present case is trying to make mountains out of molehills and the loss suffered by him. The complainant should have been careful in the first place while he was signing the cheque in question. It is a routine practice for the bank to send a default message to the account holder whenever a cheque is presented irrespective of its honor/dishonor. Another message is also sent on the successful/unsuccessful transaction. In the present case, it could be due to a glitch that the SMS got delayed but OP No.1 cannot be blamed for this technical snag as it is beyond its control. OP No.1 had sent the cheque in question to the presenter along with the reason of dishonor as soon as the cheque was presented. Now it is up to the presenter who had to inform the complainant regarding the fate of his cheque. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by OP No.1 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with special costs.
4.           Upon notice, OPs No.2 to 5 appeared and filed written version and raised preliminary objections to the effect that the complaint is not legally maintainable; the complainant has concealed and suppressed the true and material facts from this Commission and has not come with clean hands; the complainant has no cause of action and locus-standi to file and maintain the present complaint etc. On merits, it has been stated that cheque in question was presented at Head Post Office Ambala City on 13.03.2021 for crediting the same in PPF A/c No.386893578 and on the same day the cheque under reference was forwarded to Ambala GPO for clearance being the member of clearing house. The same was received back from clearing house (SBI) on 16.03.2021 through Ambala GPO with the objection memo "Drawers Signature differs". On 17.03.2021 postmaster Ambala City HO gave intimation to the concerned subscriber about the dishonor of the cheque vide its letter dated 17.03.2021, but neither the subscriber visited the post office nor collected the dishonored cheque till 12.04.2021. While opening PPF account of the depositor, the complainant mentioned his address as House No.8, Mathura Enclave, Ambala City, but in the present complaint he has mentioned his address as House No.64, Navneet Nagar, Ambala City, which may be the reason for non receipt of intimation well in time. The case is that the cheque was dishonoured on account of objection " Drawers signatures differs" and the amount remained credited in his account in SBI and remained incurring the interest as per Bank rates and no loss of any kind has been caused to the complainant. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by OPs No.2 to 5 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with costs.
5.           Authorized representative of the complainant tendered affidavit of the complainant as Annexure CW/1A alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-17 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant. Learned counsel for the OP No.1 tendered affidavit of Harpinder Singh, Branch Manager of OP No.1 BANK- State Bank of India as Annexure OP-1/A and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.1. Learned counsel for the OPs No.2 to 5 tendered affidavit of Arun Goel, Superintendent of OPs No.3-Post office Ambala Cantt. as Annexure OP2/A2-5 alongwith documents as Annexure OP2-5/1 to OP2-5/9 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs No.2 to 5
6.           We have heard the Authorized Representative of the complainant and learned counsel for OPs No.1 to 5 and have also carefully gone through the case file.
7.           Authorized Representative of the complainant submitted that by not intimating with regard to dishonor of the cheque in question either by OP No.1 or by OPs No.2 to 5, they are deficient in providing service and also negligent, thereby causing huge financial loss, mental agony and harassment to the complainant.
8.           On the other hand, learned counsel for OP No.1 submitted that though message with regard to dishonor of the cheque in question was sent to the complainant on the very same day, yet, the same could not be received by him, due to technical glitch in the system of OP No.1.
9.           Learned counsel for OPs No.2 to 5  submitted that intimation with regard to dishonor of the cheque in question was sent to the complainant vide letter dated 17.03.2021 and also he was asked to collect his cheque but he failed to do so. He further submitted that for his own fault, complainant cannot hold OPs No.2 to 5 responsible for that.
10.           The moot question which falls for consideration is, as to whether, there was any deficiency in service on the part of OPs or not. It may be stated here that admittedly the cheque in question was presented by the complainant with OP No.2 for encashment thereof through OP No.1, is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the said cheque was dishonoured on the ground “signatures differs”.  It is the definite case of the complainant that neither OP No.1 nor OP No.2 informed him that the cheque presented by him has been dishonoured on the ground aforesaid, yet, OP No.1 is trying to wriggle out of the situation by stating that message of the said dishonor of the cheque in question might not have received by the complainant because of technical glitch in the system. At the same time, OPs No.2 to 5 are trying to wriggle out of the situation by placing reliance on letter dated 17.03.2021 saying that intimation in writing was given to the complainant vide said letter but he failed to collect the cheque in question.
11.           First coming to the plea taken by OP No.1 to the effect that message of the said dishonor of the cheque in question might not have received by the complainant because of technical glitch in the system, it may be stated here OP No.1 has failed to place on record any cogent evidence in the shape of report of any technical expert to prove that there was some technical glitch in its system, as a result of which, message could not be received by the complainant qua dishonoured cheque. Under these circumstances, mere bald plea taken by OP No.1 in this regard did not merit acceptance and stands rejected and it is therefore held that by not sending message to the complainant, over his mobile phone, with regard to dishonor of his cheque, OP No.1 is deficient in providing service to him. 
12.           Now coming to the plea taken by OPs No.2 to 5 to the effect that letter dated 17.03.2021, Annexure C-14, was sent to the complainant informing him to collect the said dishonoured cheque. It may be stated here that no cogent evidence in the shape of dispatch entry in the register or any other document has been placed on record by the OPs No.2 to 5, to prove that the said          letter was actually sent to the complainant. In the absence of proof of      sending of the letter dated 17.03.2021, to the complainant, mere placing on record the said letter is of no help to OPs No.2 to 5.
13.           Under above circumstances, it is held that neither OP No.1 intimated the complainant regarding dishonouring the cheque in question nor OPs No.2 to 5 did so, as a result of which, lot of mental agony and harassment was suffered by the complainant. This act of the OPs certainly amounts to deficiency in rendering service and negligence for which the complainant needs to be compensated. At the same time, it is also held that the complainant is not entitled to any consequential benefit to the tune of Rs.7,42,876/-, based on assumptions and presumptions. Even otherwise, the amount of the cheque in question remained in the bank account of the complainant only on account of dishonouring of the same.
14.           For the reasons recorded above, this complaint stands partly allowed with the directions to OPs to pay lumpsum amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation, jointly and severally, for deficiency in rendering service and also negligence aforesaid, to the complainant within the period of 45 days, from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order, failing which the said amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum, from the date of default, till realization. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room. 

Announced:- 02.05.2023

 

(Vinod Kumar Sharma)	(Ruby Sharma)	(Neena Sandhu)
Member	Member	President