State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Kamaljit Kaur vs Punjab National Bank on 27 July, 2010
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
S.C.O. NO. 3009-10, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
Consumer Complaint No.31 of 2010
Date of institution : 30.3.2010
Date of decision : 27.7.2010
Kamaljit Kaur wife of Darshan Kumar, resident of Geeta Niwas, Street No.4,
Rahimpur Road, Mohalla Sarup Nagar, Rahimpur, Hoshiarpur.
.......Appellant
Versus
1. Punjab National Bank, Head Office 7, Bhikhaji Cama Place, New Delhi.
2. Circle Officer, Punjab National Bank, Scheme No.11, Near District Jail,
Hoshiarpur.
3. Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, Branch Office, Railway Road,
Hoshiarpur.
......Respondents
Consumer Complaint under Section 17 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Before :-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.N. Aggarwal President.
Mrs. Amarpreet Sharma, Member.
Present :-
For the complainant : Shri Mandeep Kumar, Advocate.
JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL, PRESIDENT:
The complainant had bank account No.36692 in the Punjab National Bank respondent No.2. She was issued cheque book including cheque No.790882. This cheque number and the other cheques were stolen by her servant and the matter was reported to the respondent bank on 14.10.2002 by the complainant. This information was recorded by the bank officials of respondent No.2.
2. It was further pleaded that this cheque No.790882 dated 27.5.2003 for an amount of Rs.2,25,000/- was presented by one Hans Raj in the bank respondent Consumer Complaint No.31 of 2010. 2 No.2 through his account No.63454. This cheque was returned dishonoured with the remarks "insufficient funds".
3. The complainant received the notice dated 5.6.2003 from Maninderpal Singh, Advocate for Hans Raj under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. On the receipt of this notice the complainant learnt that cheque No.790882 was one of the stolen cheques and it was mis-utilised by Hans Raj. Resultantly the complainant reported the matter to the police in which Hans Raj was summoned. The complainant also sent the reply to Hans Raj pointing out that she had not taken any loan from him (Hans Raj) nor she had issued any cheque in his favour and that the said cheque was stolen by her servant for which the matter was reported to the Bank on 14.10.2002.
4. It was further pleaded that Hans Raj had filed a criminal complaint against the complainant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in the Court of a Judicial Magistrate. The said complaint was contested by the complainant. She had produced Amarjit Singh, Deputy Manager of Punjab National Bank, Hoshiarpur as a witness who deposed that the complainant had submitted an application stopping the payment of her cheques which were stolen by the servant. The complainant had also filed her affidavit in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hoshiarpur. She had also examined Nirmal Singh Constable as DW-3. Even Hans Raj also admitted in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hoshiarpur that the complainant had given the information to the bank about the theft of her cheques.
5. The complainant underwent the agony of trial from 18.7.2003 to 18.2.2010 on the basis of the wrong information submitted by the bank officials and the complainant was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. She was awarded the imprisonment of one year and she was directed to make the payment of fine of Rs.1,000/-. Therefore the respondent bank has committed deficiency in service while giving wrong information to Hans Raj. Hence the complaint for recovery of Rs.50 lakhs as compensation. Consumer Complaint No.31 of 2010. 3
6. File has been perused. Submissions have been considered.
7. Even according to her own version cheque No.790882 of the complainant was stolen by her servant along with other cheques and she had given this information to the respondent-Bank vide her letter dated 14.10.2002. When Hans Raj presented this cheque dated 27.5.2003 for a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- in the respondent-Bank it was dishonoured with the remarks "insufficient funds". The fact remains that the officials of the respondents had refused to honour the cheque which was in tune with the version of the complainant because her cheque was stolen.
8. Moreover if the complainant has been convicted by the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hoshiarpur under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for not honouring the cheque, it could be for the reason that her defence was poor. No fault can be attributed for the conviction of the complainant to the respondent Bank. If the complainant has been convicted illegally she can resort to remedy of appeal etc. but she has no case against the respondent Bank. She should be thankful to the respondent bank for not honouring a cheque which was stolen.
9. Moreover the cheque was allegedly lost in the year 2002. The cheque was dishonoured by the officials of the respondent Bank on 27.5.2003 while the present complaint has been filed by the complainant on 30.3.2010. Therefore the complaint is otherwise also barred by limitation.
10. There is no merit in the present complaint and the same is dismissed.
11. The arguments in this case were heard on 23.7.2010 and the order was reserved. Now, the order be communicated to the parties.
(JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL)
PRESIDENT
July 27 , 2010 (MRS. AMARPREET SHARMA)
Bansal MEMBER
Consumer Complaint No.31 of 2010. 4