State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Raghubar Dayal Kailash Chand vs State Bank Of India on 10 March, 2017
Daily Order STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA First Appeal No : 315 of 2016 Date of Institution: 12.04.2016 Date of Decision : 10.03.2017 1. M/s Raghubar Dayal Kailash Chand, Mangatpura, Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar through its Proprietor Sh. Kailash Chand. 2. Kailash Chand Proprietor of M/s Raghubar Dayal Kailash Chand, Mangatpura, Jagadhri, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar. Appellants-Opposite Parties Versus State Bank of India, Jagadhri, through its Branch Manager. Respondent CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President. Mr. Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.
Argued by: Shri Rajesh Malik, Advocate proxy for Sh. Namit Khurana, Advocate for appellants.
Shri K.S. Arya, Advocate for respondent.
O R D E R BALBIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER This complainants' appeal is directed against the order dated March 10th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Yamuna Nagar (for short 'the District Forum') whereby complaint filed by the complainants was dismissed.
2. M/s Raghubar Dayal Kailash Chand-Complainant No.1 is the proprietorship firm and Kailash Chand-complainant No.2 is its proprietor. The complainants are maintaining account No.10556923806 with State Bank of India-Opposite Party/respondent. On March 17th, 2012 there was a credit balance of Rs.11,353.87 in the account of the complainants. On March 21st, 2012 the complainants deposited a cheque amounting to Rs.2.00 lacs in the above said account which was to be cleared by Punjab National Bank.
3. On March 22nd, 2012, the complainants issued two cheques amounting to Rs.1,38,919/- and Rs.62,000/- in favour of M/s Dhruv Steels and M/s Harish Enterprises respectively. Both the above named firms presented their respective cheques to their respective bankers but the same were returned with the remarks "Effects not clear; present again".
4. The grievance of the complainants before the District Forum was that the opposite party-bank was deficient in service because on March 22nd, 2012 the credit balance in their account was Rs.2,11,353.87 whereas the total amount of both the cheques issued by the complainants was Rs.2,,00,919/-.
5. Counsel for the parties have been heard. File perused.
6. Admittedly, the complainant-Kailash Chand issued a cheque amounting to Rs.1,38,919/- on 22nd March, 2012 in favour of M/s Dhruv Steels and another cheque amounting to Rs.62,000/- on the same date in favour of M/s Harish Enterprises, drawn at Opposite Party-State Bank of Indi, Jagadhri. The cheques were presented for clearance from the account, of the complainants firm, bearing No.10556923806 in State Bank of India but the cheques were returned with the remarks "Effects not clear; present again" alongwith memo dated 23rd March, 2012. In this way, the payment of the amount mentioned in the above mentioned cheques could not be possible on the date of presentation of the cheques.
7. The grievance of the complainants is that an amount of Rs.2,11,353.87 was in complainants' account but despite that both the chques mentioned above, total amounting to Rs.2,00,919/-, could not be encashed and the cheques were returned without payment. It is evident from the 'Statement of Account' of account No.10556923806 (Annexure R-1) in the name of complainants firm that on 17th March, 2012 an amount of Rs.11,353.87 was in the account. A cheque bearing No.349769 amounting to Rs.2.00 lacs, was presented before the opposite party-bank by the complainants on 21st March, 2012. The payment of that amount could not be credited in the account of the complainants on 22nd March, 2012 before presentation of both the cheques. Both the cheques, mentioned above, issued by the complainants were presented for payment before the opposite party-bank on 22nd March, 2012.
8. As per version of the opposite party, in this case both the cheques issued by the complainants could not be got encashed on the date of presentation on 22nd March, 2012, because the payment amounting to Rs.2.00 lacs of cheque No.349769 could not be credited to the account of the complainants in State Bank of India from Punjab National Bank. As per version of the opposite parties, the amount of Rs.2.00 lacs could not be credited to the account of the complainants due to some faults in the software system of Punjab National Bank on that date, before presentation of two cheques for payment. It clearly appears that certainly there was no fault on the part of the opposite party-State Bank of India, Jagadhri. No findings can be given regarding any fault on the part of Punjab National Bank as Punjab National Ban is not a party to the to the proceedings of this case.
9. It is evident from the Statement of Account (Annexure R-1) that when both these cheques were again presented, the total amount of Rs.2,00,919/- was debited from the account of the complainants on 26th March, 2012. It is told that 24th and 25th days of March, 2012 were public holidays. The situation appears to be quite clear. No un-necessary delay has been caused regarding payment of the above said two cheques issued by the complainants. Moreover, before the District Forum as well as before this Commission at the time of arguments, learned counsel for the complainants could not place on the file any such guidelines and rules providing time limit for crediting amount in account by presentation of a cheque to be drawn from any other bank or the same bank. It does not appear to be a case of un-necessary delay causing un-necessary inconvenience to the complainants. Moreover, if the amount on the basis of cheque bearing No.349769 could not be credited in the account of the complainants due to some fault in the system of Punjab National Bank, the opposite party-State Bank of India cannot be blamed and penalized for it.
10. Frankly speaking, it was not a case of so much inconvenience and grievance that the complainants should have shown so much haste in taking decision to file complaint before the District Forum and thereafter to file an appeal before this Commission. In fact, by filing the present complaint, the complainants have caused un-necessary inconvenience for themselves as well as for the opposite party. Lot of money might have been spent by both the parties in this litigation merely because the payment of cheques could be received on presentation of the cheques after four days including two public holidays and that is also due to some fault in the software system of Punjab National Bank. Moreover, both the cheques issued by the complainants when presented were not dishonoured, rather, were returned with the remarks "effects not clear, present again". In these circumstances, findings can be safely given that it is not a case of deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. We found no merit in the appeal and the same stands dismissed.
Announced:
10.03.2017 (Balbir Singh) Judicial Member (Nawab Singh) President CL