State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Kundan Mill Board & Paper Mill vs Punjab & Sindh Bank & Ors. on 6 October, 2022
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.282 of 2022
Date of institution : 11.04.2022
Reserved On : 21.09.2022
Date of decision : 06.10.2022
M/s Kundan Mill Board & Paper Mills, H.No.1181/1, Harnam Nagar,
Model Town, Ludhiana (Punjab), through its Proprietor Smt. Jatinder
Kaur.
....Appellant/Complainant
Versus
1. Punjab & Sind Bank, Registered Office, Lakkar Bazar, Ludhiana.
2. Punjab and Sind Bank, Moti Nagar Branch, Ludhiana through its
Branch Manager.
....Respondents/Opposite Parties
First Appeal under Section 41 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the
order dated 09.03.2022 passed by the
District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, Ludhiana.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary, President
Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.
1) Whether Reporters of the Newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No
2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No
3) Whether judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No Present:-
For the appellant : None
For the respondents : Sh. I.P. Singh, Advocate.
First Appeal No.282 of 2022 2
JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY, PRESIDENT
Appellant/complainant i.e. M/s Kundan Mills Board & Paper Mills, H.No.1181/1, Harnam Nagar, Model Town, Ludhiana (Punjab), through its Proprietor Smt. Jatinder Kaur has filed the present appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the order dated 09.03.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ludhiana (in short, "the District Commission"), whereby the complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed.
2. It would be apposite to mention here that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as have been arrayed before the District Commission.
3. Briefly, the facts of the case as made out by the complainant in the complaint are that the complainant was maintaining Account No.06811100001418 with the respondents/opposite parties i.e. Punjab & Sind Bank. The cheque book issued to the complainant by the opposite parties was misplaced and for that purpose a request was made to opposite party No.2 to issue another cheque book and the old cheque book as and when traced out would be surrendered to the opposite parties. The opposite parties issued the Statement of Account for the period from 01.04.2018 to 11.04.2018 which was annexed with the complaint as Ex.C-1. It was found by the complainant that an amount of ₹200/- as well as ₹36/- as CGST charges on stop payment charges were debited thrice from the said account on 05.04.2018. Another amount of ₹600/- plus ₹108/- as First Appeal No.282 of 2022 3 CGST charges on stop payment charges was also debited on the same day. It was further mentioned in the complaint that no cheque was used by her from the old cheque book but still said amounts were debited from her account.
4. By alleging certain allegations against the opposite parties, a prayer was made in the complaint that the opposite parties be directed to credit an amount of ₹1,416/- in the account of the complainant along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of debit of said amount and also to pay a compensation of ₹5,000/- on account of causing mental agony and financial constraints suffered by her.
5. Said complaint was opposed by opposite parties No.1 & 2 by filing written reply and averments made in the complaint were contested and denied specifically. However, it was admitted in the reply that the complainant requested to issue new cheque book to her, which was issued by opposite party No.2. It was further mentioned in the reply that the payment from the lost cheque book was also stopped by the Bank as per the Bank procedure, so that the customer may not suffer any loss. It was further mentioned that the amount towards stopped payment charges was debited from the account of the complainant, as per the Rules and Regulations of the Bank and it cannot be said to be illegal, arbitrary or malafide in any manner. The amount of ₹1,416/- was debited from the account of the complainant First Appeal No.282 of 2022 4 regarding stop payment charges of lost cheque(s) as per instructions of the complainant. As such, no cause of action had accrued to the complainant to file the complaint.
6. By considering the averments made in the complaint and reply thereof and also by hearing the counsel representing both the parties, the complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed by the District Commission vide impugned order dated 09.03.2022. The relevant portion of the impugned order as mentioned in Paras-8 & 9 is reproduced as under:
"8. Having thoughtfully considered the rival contentions raised by counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that even though in the letter dated 04.04.2018 which is Annexure-I on the file, it was not specifically mentioned that the payment of lost cheques be stopped, it cannot be said that the payment of the lost cheques has been unauthorizedly stopped by the bank. Rather, the OP bank appears to have acted diligently and action taken by the OP bank was in the interest of the complainant herself. The matter can be looked at from another angle. Had any of the lost cheques have been fraudulently encashed, the complainant in that event would have claimed that he had informed the bank regarding the lost cheques but despite that the bank has cleared the payment of the lost cheques. Therefore, it cannot be said to be a deficiency in service nor the bank can be said to be acted beyond brief if the payment of the lost cheques have been stopped. If the cheques have been rightly stopped for payment of the cheques, the complainant was bound to pay the stop payment charges which have been imposed by the OP bank strictly in accordance with the instructions incorporated in Annexure-II. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.
9. As a result of above discussion, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed without any order as to costs. Copies of First Appeal No.282 of 2022 5 order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room."
7. Said order has been challenged by the appellant/complainant by way of filing the present appeal by raising a number of grounds as mentioned in the appeal. However, none appeared on behalf of the appellant/complainant on 21.04.2022 when the case was fixed for hearing. However, by considering the grounds mentioned in the appeal and by perusing the impugned order, the appeal was admitted and notice was issued to the respondents/opposite parties for 08.06.2022. The case came up for hearing on 08.06.2022 but the counsel for the appellant was not present on that date also. However, the counsel for the respondents appeared and the case was adjourned to 04.08.2022 on request of the counsel for the respondents to argue the case and also to file written arguments. Even on 04.08.2022, none appeared on behalf of the appellant and thereafter the case was adjourned to 21.09.2022. On that day also, the counsel for the appellant was not present. However, the counsel for the respondents/opposite parties raised the arguments on behalf of the respondents.
8. Mr. I.P. Singh, learned counsel for the respondents/opposite parties submits that the impugned order passed by the District Commission is based on proper appreciation of evidence and by considering all the relevant facts and law. Detailed findings have been recorded therein. Learned counsel further submits First Appeal No.282 of 2022 6 that there was no 'deficiency in service' or any mal-practice on the part of the respondents. A preliminary objection was also raised that the complaint was not maintainable, as the complainant was not covered under the definition of 'consumer' as has been held by the Hon'ble National Commission in the case of ICICI Bank Ltd. & Ors. v. M/s J.C.M. Poultry Farm 2016 (3) CPR 211. Learned counsel also submits that in case of commercial transaction, no complaint was maintainable and no case was made out to file the complaint. Learned counsel further submits that the amount was deducted towards 'stop payment charges' as per Rules and Regulations of the Bank. It is not the case of the complainant that the payment of the stolen cheques was made or the Bank had cleared the payment of any lost cheque and as such it cannot be said to be a case of 'deficiency in service'. The payment was rightly stopped for the cheques which were lost by the complainant. As per the Procedure and Instructions (Annexure-II), the complainant was bound to pay the 'stop payment charges' as in case of stopping of the payment of the cheques it was done by the Bank strictly in accordance with the instructions as incorporated in the aforesaid instructions. Learned counsel has also relied upon following judgments in support of his contentions:
i) Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Sushil Gulati 2015 (1) CPJ 326 (NC); and
ii) Ajay Kumar Singh & Ors. v. Canara Bank & Ors. 2015 (3) CLT 493 (NC).First Appeal No.282 of 2022 7
9. We have carefully gone through the grounds of appeal of the appellant and have also perused the impugned order under challenge and thereafter the arguments raised by the respondents/opposite parties. It was observed that the counsel for the appellant did not appear on three dates and neither any intimation was there nor any request was made.
10. Facts of the case regarding filing of the complaint by the complainant before the District Commission, reply thereto filed by the appellant/opposite party, dismissal of said complaint and thereafter filing of the present appeal by the appellant/complainant are not disputed.
11. Without going into the controversy as to whether the complainant falls under the definition of 'consumer' or not, the issue for consideration by this Commission is as to whether the amount debited by the opposite parties (Bank) from the account of the complainant was contrary to any Instruction, Rule or Procedure or not?
12. Admittedly, the case of the complainant was that the cheque book issued to her was misplaced and said fact was brought to the notice of the Bank by asking to issue another cheque book.
13. It is not the case of the complainant that any cheque out of the lost cheque book was used or misused by any person or encashed by the Bank. The grievance of the complainant is only that 'stop payment charges' have been claimed by the Bank, which are stated to First Appeal No.282 of 2022 8 be illegal and unwarranted. One more additional ground has been taken in the appeal that neither any Instruction/Rule of the Bank for charging 'stop payment charges' was conveyed to the complainant nor any notice before deducting the amount was ever issued. However, said ground was nowhere raised in the complaint filed before the District Commission. Moreover, it is a matter of common knowledge that while opening an account with the Bank, all the general instructions are brought to the notice of the customer as the same are incorporated in the Account Opening Form.
14. Nothing has been brought to our notice that any negligence was there on the part of the Bank. The cheque book was lost from the complainant herself and intimation thereof was sent to the Bank. The limited claim has been made out in the complaint that the amount of 'stop payment charges' has been wrongly charged. The 'stop payment charges' are claimed in respect of lost cheques. Accordingly, it cannot be said that the Bank has acted contrary to any procedure or instructions. The payment of lost cheques was stopped just to look after the interest of the account holder. In case the cheques were stopped for payment of the amount, the complainant was bound to pay the 'stop payment charges' and the same were imposed by the Bank as per Instructions/Regulations as incorporated in Annexure-II. There was no 'deficiency in service' on the part of the First Appeal No.282 of 2022 9 opposite parties. For that purpose, no notice was required to be issued to the complainant.
15. In view of the discussion as mentioned above, we do not find any force in the grounds of appeal and the appeal being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed and the impugned order dated 09.03.2022 passed by the District Commission is upheld. No order as to costs.
16. Since the main case has been disposed of, so all the pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, are accordingly disposed of.
17. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases and pandemic of COVID-19.
(JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY) PRESIDENT (URVASHI AGNIHOTRI) MEMBER October 06, 2022.
(Gurmeet S)