State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Gian Singh vs Punjab National Bank, on 27 September, 2013
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH First Appeal No. : 413 of 2013 Date of Institution : 24.09.2013 Date of Decision : 27/09/2013 Gian Singh s/o Sh. Chanan Singh, r/o H.No.250, Near Guga Madi, Village Sarangpur, U.T. Chandigarh. Appellant/complainant V e r s u s 1. Punjab National Bank, Circle Head, Zonal Office, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh, through its Chairman/ Managing Director. 2. Punjab National Bank, Branch Office, Khuda Lahora, U.T. Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager. 3. Sh. D.P. Goyal, Senior Manager, O/o Field General Manager, Punjab National Bank, Sector 17, Chandigarh. ....Respondents/Opposite Parties Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT. MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.
Argued by: Sh. Ranjit S. Dhiman, Advocate for the appellant.
PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT This appeal is directed against the order dated 02.09.2013, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, it dismissed the complaint, filed by the complainant (now appellant).
2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant was a bonafide customer and account holder of the Opposite Parties Bank, at Khuda Lahora, U.T. Chandigarh. The complainant went abroad, and during that period, he used to remit his salary, into his account, with Opposite Party No.2. When the complainant came back to India, in April, 2009, there was a balance of Rs.7,51,318/- in his account. It was stated that the complainant entered into an agreement, with one Sh. Ranjit Singh, in August, 2011, to buy a piece of land, on payment of token amount, to the tune of Rs.50,000/-. Later on, when the complainant visited the Bank of the Opposite Parties, for withdrawal of the amount, to make payment for the deal, aforesaid, he came to know that there was a balance of Rs.1,85,557/-, and the rest of the money had been withdrawn, unauthorizely. The complainant lodged a complaint with Opposite Party No.2, on the same day. After inquiry, it was found that there were 35 withdrawals, from the account of the complainant, amounting to Rs.3,79,000/-, as also another amount of Rs.1,07,000/-, had been wrongly debited, after effecting transfer entry. It was further stated that those withdrawals had been made by the Officials of the Opposite Parties, by forging the signatures of the complainant. When no action was taken by Opposite Parties No.2 and 3, with regard to the complaint, made by the complainant, he lodged an F.I.R. A complaint, with regard to the aforesaid withdrawals was also made to the Zonal Officer, Punjab National Bank. After the complaint of the complainant, a sum of Rs.1,07,000/- was credited back to his account, on 01.11.2011. The complainant again took up the matter with Opposite Parties No.2 and 3. The officials of the Opposite Parties admitted the fraudulent withdrawals, from his account. It was further stated that the complainant approached the Opposite Parties, through every possible means, with a request to remit the remaining amount, unauthorizely withdrawn, from his account, but to no avail. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed, directing the Opposite Parties, to pay Rs.40,000/-, alongwith interest @18% P.A.; Rs.50,000/-, alongwith interest @18% P.A., on account of loss of forfeiture of earnest money, referred to above; compensation, to the tune of Rs.1 lacs, alongwith interest @18% P.A., for mental agony and physical harassment; and cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.21,000/-.
3. Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, in their joint written version, admitted that the complainant had saving bank account, with them. It was stated that, on enquiry, it was found that one employee of the Bank, namely Raja Singh, who was working as Clerk-cum-Cashier, with it, and was a close friend of the complainant, had been allowed to make these withdrawals approximately numbering 28 from 10.06.2009 to 8.04.2010. It was further stated that Raja Singh expired on 22.08.2010. It was further stated that the amount allegedly withdrawn fraudulently had already been refunded to the complainant, after receiving the same, from the relatives/legal heirs of Raja Singh, which was evident from the statement of account of the complainant, copy whereof is Annexure R-1. It was further stated that, it was incorrect, that the complainant was not aware of the withdrawals aforesaid. It was further stated that, on receipt of the amount, the complainant expressed his gratitude, vide letters dated 27.12.2011 Annexure C-5 and Annexure R-2 dated 08.05.2012. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, nor they indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.
4. Opposite Party No.3 in his reply stated that none of the withdrawals, in respect of the account of the complainant, was passed by him, as he worked with the Bank, from 10.05.2010 to June, 2012. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of Opposite Party No.3, nor he indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.
5. In the replication, filed by the complainant, he reasserted all the averments, contained in the complaint, and repudiated those, contained in the written version of the Opposite Parties.
6. The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.
7. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, dismissed the complaint, as stated above.
8. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/complainant.
9. We have heard the Counsel for the appellant, at the preliminary stage, and, have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully.
10. The Counsel for the appellant, submitted that, no doubt, the entire amount, to the tune of Rs.4,86,000/-, which was illegally withdrawn, from the account of the complainant, was credited to his account, as was depicted by him, in his letter Annexure C-5 dated 27.12.2011. He further submitted that on account of illegal withdrawals from the account of the complainant, he underwent a lot of mental agony and physical harassment. He further submitted that that bargain with regard to land, which the complainant had struck with Ranjit Singh, stood cancelled for want of money and the earnest money of Rs.50,000/- was also forfeited. He further submitted that he wrote letter Annexure C-6 dated 27.12.2011, to Opposite Party No.1, reserving his right to claim damages. He further submitted that there was clear-cut deficiency, in rendering service, and indulgence into unfair trade practice, on the part of the Opposite Parties, but the District Forum illegally dismissed the complaint.
11. After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the appellant, and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, at the preliminary stage, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. According to the complainant, withdrawals of the amounts aforesaid, was made, from his account unauthorisedly. The version of the Opposite Parties, was to the effect, that these withdrawals were made by Raja Singh, an Official of the Bank, and a close friend of the complainant, who later on died. When the matter was brought to the notice of the Opposite Parties, for wrongful withdrawals, from the account of complainant, and it was found that the same had been made by Raja Singh, his close friend, who later on died, the amount was recovered from his legal representatives, and credited to the account of the complainant. After the amount aforesaid was credited to the account of the complainant, letter copy whereof is Annexure C-5 dated 27.12.2011, was sent by him, to Opposite Party No.2, which reads as under:-
Dated 27.12.2011 The Manager Punjab National Bank BO. Khuda Lahora Sir, Reg: My SB account no.1172000100049658 with you.
Please refer to my earlier letter with regard to unauthorized debit To (to) the tune of Rs.486.000/-. I am grateful to you that with your kind Efforts (efforts) the total amount has been recovered and amount of Rs.486,000/- Has (has) been credited to my account no. 1172000100049658. With this My (my) claim for total amount debited unauthorized has been settled.
With thanks, Yours sincerely, Sd/-
(Gian)
12. The contents of letter extracted above, was signed by the complainant, as also by two witnesses, one of them was Rakesh Kumar, Sarpanch, Lahora and another was Harish Singh, resident of House No.250, Sarangpur. It is evident, from this document, that the entire amount of Rs.4,86,000/-, with the efforts of the Opposite Parties was recovered, and credited to account number 1172000100049658, which pertained to the complainant. It is further evident, from this document/letter, that the complainant stated that his claim for total amount, debited unauthorizely, had been settled. Not only this, even Annexure R-2, another letter dated 08.05.2012, addressed to the Manager, Punjab National Bank/Opposite Party No.2, by the complainant, reads as under:-
The Manager Punjab National Bank BO. Khuda Lahora Sir, Reg: My SB account no.1172000100049658 with you.
With reference to my above account I may inform you that I have received full and final payment of unauthorized withdrawl (withdrawal) from My (my) account and I will claim no money in the account nowonwards.
With thanks, Yours sincerely, Sd/-
(Gian) Dt.08.05.2012
13. From the contents of letter afore-extracted also, it is evident, that the complainant received full and final payment, unauthorizely withdrawn, from his account, and that he was not to claim, any money, from the Opposite Parties from that date (08.05.2012) onwards. No doubt, according to the complainant, he never issued letter Annexure R-2 dated 08.05.2012, but the same was fabricated by the Opposite Parties, yet, no cogent evidence, was produced by him (complainant), to that effect. When comparison of the signatures of the complainant on Annexures R-2 and C-5 is made, then, it could not be said that the letter dated 08.05.2012, was not sent by the complainant, to the Opposite Parties. Once, the complainant, after the credit of entire amount, allegedly unauthorizely withdrawn, from his account, was fully satisfied and also stated that his claim, for the total amount debited unauthorizely, had been settled, later on, he was estopped from claiming any amount, from the Opposite Parties. There is nothing, on the record, that Annexure R-2 letter dated 08.05.2012, was submitted by the complainant, under coercion or undue influence, or that fraud had been played upon him. Not only this, even Rakesh Sharma, resident of Village Khudda Lahora, U.T., Chandigarh, submitted his affidavit, to the effect, that no doubt, letter dated 08.05.2012 Annexure R-2, did not bear his address, yet, it was delivered by Gian Singh/complainant, while he was present in the office of Opposite Party No.2. In view of letters dated 27.12.2011 Annexure C-5 and 08.05.2012 Annexure R-2 submitted by the complainant, to the Opposite Parties, after receipt of the entire amount, allegedly unauthorizely withdrawn from his account, he was estopped from filing the complaint. The District Forum was also right, in holding so.
14. No doubt, legal notice 25.05.2012- Annexure C-7, through Registered Post, was statedly sent by the complainant, to the Opposite Parties. It is not known, as to under what circumstances, the legal notice, copy whereof is Annexure C-7 dated 25.05.2012, was sent by the complainant, to the Opposite Parties, after receipt of the entire amount, on 27.12.2011 and in view of the contents of letter dated 08.05.2012, wherein, he in clear-cut terms stated that he had received the amount, in full and final settlement of his claim, unauthorizely withdrawn and would not claim any amount, from that date onwards. Once, the matter was finally settled, between the parties, and nothing remained due to the complainant, against the Opposite Parties, sending of legal notice, copy whereof is Annexure C-7, after about five months, from the date of letter Annexure C-5 dated 27.12.2011, and after about 17 days, from the date of letter dated 08.05.2012 Annexure R-2, was nothing, but a ploy to claim more amount, from the Opposite Parties. As stated above, since after submission of letters Annexure C-5 dated 27.12.2011 and Annexure R-2 dated 08.05.2012, stating therein, that he had received the entire amount, in full and final settlement of the claim and nothing was due against the Opposite Parties, nor would he claim anything from them, thereafter, no complaint, on the basis of legal notice, in question, was maintainable.
15. The Opposite Parties, were, thus, neither deficient, in rendering service, nor indulged into unfair trade practice, and even the complainant was estopped from filing a complaint, after the submission of letters Annexures C-5 and R-2, referred to above, duly signed by him, and, as such, the Consumer Complaint was not maintainable.
16. No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the appellant.
17. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the order passed by the District Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.
18. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.
19. Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
20. The file be consigned to Record Room, after due completion.
Pronounced.
September 27, 2013 Sd/-
[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)] PRESIDENT Sd/-
(DEV RAJ) MEMBER Rg