State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sunil Kr. Joshi vs Asstt. General Manager on 30 August, 2022
FA/791/2013 SUNIL KUMAR JOSHI VS. ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER D.O.D.: 30.08.2022
IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION
Date of Institution: 16.05.2018
Date of hearing: 11.07.2022
Date of Decision: 30.08.2022
FIRST APPEAL NO.- 791/2013
IN THE MATTER OF
SUNIL KUMAR JOSHI
S/o LATE SHRI LALIT PRASHAD JOSHI
R/o H.NO. B-363 LAJPAT NAGAR,
SAHIBABAD, SECTORE - VI,
GHAZIABAD, UTTAR PRADESH.
(Through: Mr. A.K. Gahaloth, Advocate)
...Appellant
VERSUS
ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER
SYNDICATE BANK
COMMUNITY CENTRE,
MAYA PURI, PHASE - I,
NEW DELHI - 110064
(Through: Ms. Anju Jain & Mr. Hitesh Sachar, Advocate)
...Respondent
CORAM:
HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
(PRESIDENT)
HON'BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Present: None for the Parties.
ALLOWED PAGE 1 OF 8
FA/791/2013 SUNIL KUMAR JOSHI VS. ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER D.O.D.: 30.08.2022
PER: HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
PRESIDENT
JUDGMENT
1. The facts of the case necessary as per the District Commission record are:
"The Complainant is having Saving Bank A/c No.90282010060567 with the Mayapuri Branch of O.P Bank. He alleges that the Pass-Book and Cheque-Book containing 12 leaves of cheques were lost on 23.12.2010 at about 6 P.M. in the evening. He, therefore, on the next date at 10 A.M. submitted a written application dated 24.12.2010 to the O.P. Bank requesting for stopping payment against all the cheque- leaves as per Ex-CW-1/A. He, further, alleges that on the same day i.e., 24.12.2010 at about 11:16 A.M. someone withdrew an amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- through one of the lost cheques leaves forging his signatures. The said person withdrawing the amount was captured on the CCTV as shown in the footage and the Bank officials assured him for looking into the matter and therefore the Complainant did not lodge any complaint with the O.P on the same day but when the officials started blaming the Complainant, he made a written complaint on 28.12.2010 regarding illegal withdrawal of Rs. 1,20,000/- from his account debited by the O.P to his account. When his meeting with AGM and his several telephone calls made to the O.P bore no fruit, he filed the present complaint. Subsequently, he also moved an application U/s 6 of R.T.I. Act seeking requisite information regarding his account. When the reply received on his application was not satisfactory, he filed an appeal under the R.T.I. Act which is still pending and also issued a Legal Notice under u/o 12 Rule 8 CPC for producing the footage of CCTV & original cheque- in-question but the O.P neither replied nor complied with the same.
In the present complaint U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act before this Forum filed on 13.01:2011, Complainant has requested for directions to the O.P to credit Rs. 1,20,000/- in his account with interest and also pay him Rs. 50,000/- as ALLOWED PAGE 2 OF 8 FA/791/2013 SUNIL KUMAR JOSHI VS. ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER D.O.D.: 30.08.2022 compensation for mental and physical harassment along with Rs. 2,000/- as cost of litigation."
2. The District Commission after taking into consideration the material available on record passed the order dated 24.05.2013, whereby it held as under:
"There is no denying the fact that the Complainant informed the O.P. Bank regarding the loss of his Cheque Book and the Pass Book as per his letter dated 24.12.2010. There is no time mentioned on this letter and according to the Complainant, he delivered this letter at 10.15 A.M. to Sh. R.S. Tamta, who later on passed the cheque of Rs. 1,20,000/- at 11.16 A.M., as was reflected on CC TV footage displayed in the presence of Sh. Puran Chand Manchanda of M.S. Handicraft of Taxtiles International and Sh. Chaman Singh, its production Manager. According to the O.P. the Complainant had informed them about the loss of Cheque Book and Pass Book between 11.00 A.M,- 11.15 A.M. which means the withdrawal of Rs. 1,20,000/- has taken place between 10.15 A.M. to 11.16 A.M. on 24.12.2010. The information about the lost cheque supplied by the Complainant vide his letter dated 24.12.2010 is not only vague but is also incomplete. He has stated in this letter that he had lost his Cheque-Book and Pass Book in respect of his Saving Account No. 90282010060567 and that he be issued fresh cheque book and pass book. No doubt, he has also asked for stopping all cheques but without indicating the series number of the cheque book or the numbers of the lost cheques. In the absence on this information, it was unexpected of the O.P. to immediately search for the lost cheque book series, to find out the lost cheque leaves, while the withdrawal took place within one hour as per the Complainant and within one minute as claimed by the O.P. We fully agree with the O.P. that for want of complete details of the lost cheques and in the absence of instructions from the Complainant to freeze the debits to his account, it was not feasible for the O.P. to disallow any withdrawal against a cheque purported to have been signed by the Complainant. He has not lodged any report regarding loss of his cheque book or passbook with any authority including the police despite that he is making roving enquiries to build-up his case of forgery and fraud against anyone till date. His averment regarding seeking information ALLOWED PAGE 3 OF 8 FA/791/2013 SUNIL KUMAR JOSHI VS. ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER D.O.D.: 30.08.2022 under R.T.I. and moving application under C.P.C. subsequent to the filing of the present complaint, do not have any relevance in adjudicating the present complaint.
As a result of our above discussion, we find that the Complainant has utterly failed to establish any negligence on the part of the O.P. to hold them liable for deficiency-in-service as alleged by him. The complaint, therefore, being merit-less, is dismissed."
3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the District Commission, the Appellant has preferred the present appeal contending that the District Commission has failed to appreciate the documents produced before it and erred in holding that there is no deficiency on part of the Respondent. Pressing the aforesaid contentions, the Appellant prayed for setting aside the order of the District Commission.
4. The Respondent, on the other hand, denied all the allegations of the Appellant and submitted that there is no error in the impugned order as the entire material available on record was properly scrutinized before passing the said order.
5. We have perused the materials available on record.
6. The main question for consideration before us is whether the Respondent is deficient in its service on the ground that the clearance of cheques was not stopped by the officials of the Respondent, despite the letter dated 24.12.2010 given by the Appellant.
7. On perusal, we find that the transaction of Rs.1,20,000/- took place at 11:16 A.M. on 24.12.2010 and the letter dated 24.12.2010 was received by the manager of the Syndicate Bank at around 11:00 A.M. to 11:15 A.M. on 24.12.2010 i.e. before the said amount could be withdrawn from the Saving Bank Account of the Appellant.
8. Further, the Respondent submitted that the letter dated 24.12.2010 was not clear in regard as to which cheques are to be stopped as the ALLOWED PAGE 4 OF 8 FA/791/2013 SUNIL KUMAR JOSHI VS. ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER D.O.D.: 30.08.2022 Appellant was carrying two cheque books with different serial numbers. To deal with this issue, the letter dated 24.12.2010 has been reproduced below for the ready reference:
9. On perusal of the letter dated 24.12.2010, we find that Appellant has clearly intimated the Respondent bank that he had lost/misplaced his cheque book & pass book issued by Respondent and requested the Respondent to stop all cheques against the Savings A/c No. 90282010060567.
10. Moreover, it is not possible for an ordinary person to remember the serial numbers pertaining to all the cheque leaves which were ALLOWED PAGE 5 OF 8 FA/791/2013 SUNIL KUMAR JOSHI VS. ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER D.O.D.: 30.08.2022 issued to him and for the foregoing reasons, the Appellant has clearly mentioned in his letter dated 24.12.2010, to stop the clearance of all cheques without mentioning the cheque leaves number. Therefore, we are of the view that the said letter was complete in all aspects and the submission of the Respondent that the said application was vague and incomplete is without force.
11. Further, we find that the Respondent in compliance of the letter dated 24.12.2010, deducted an amount of Rs.331/- as service charge from the Savings Bank Account of Appellant to stop the payment against the lost cheque leaves. The said transaction is evident from the statement of Appellant's Savings Bank Account which has been reproduced below for the ready reference:
ALLOWED PAGE 6 OF 8 FA/791/2013 SUNIL KUMAR JOSHI VS. ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER D.O.D.: 30.08.2022
12. Further, a bank is a financial institution that holds customers' financial assets for safekeeping and to prevent them from being stolen or lost. Moreover, safeguarding depositors' money is the key and very crucial to the banks' overall prosperity.
13. From the aforesaid discussion, it is clear that Respondent bank was deficient in providing services by not complying with the instructions given by the Appellant vide letter dated 24.12.2010 and for not stopping the clearance of all cheques presented before Respondent.
14. In the view of foregoing discussion we, therefore, set aside the order dated 24.05.2013, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-VII, New Delhi- 110017 and hold that the Respondent was deficient in providing services to the Appellant.
15. Keeping in view the facts of the present case, we direct the Opposite Party to refund an amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- in the Bank Account of the Complainant alongwith interest as per the following arrangement:
A. An interest @ 6% p.a. calculated from 24.12.2010 (the date on which the said amount was debited by the Respondent) till 30.08.2022 (being the date of the present judgment);
B. The rate of interest payable as per the aforesaid clause (A) is subject to the condition that the Respondent pays the entire amount on or before 30.10.2022;
C. Being guided by the principles as discussed above, in case the Respondent fails to refund the amount as per the aforesaid clause (A) on or before 30.10.2022, the entire ALLOWED PAGE 7 OF 8 FA/791/2013 SUNIL KUMAR JOSHI VS. ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER D.O.D.: 30.08.2022 amount is to be refunded along with an interest @ 9% p.a. calculated from 24.12.2010 (the date on which the said amount was debited by the Respondent) till the actual realization of the amount.
16. In addition to the aforesaid and taking into consideration the facts of the present case, the Respondent is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as litigation cost.
17. Application(s) pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
18. A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.
19. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this Judgment.
(JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL) PRESIDENT (PINKI) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Pronounced On:
30.08.2022 ALLOWED PAGE 8 OF 8