National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Punjab National Bank vs Bhupinder Singh on 10 September, 2012
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 813 OF 2012 (Against the order dated 8.12.2011 in Appeal No. 2544 of 2007 of the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula) Punjab National Bank Through its Manager Bawana Road Jagadhri ..... Petitioner Vs. Bhupinder Singh S/o Sh. Joginder Singh R/o House No.941, Dwarka Puri Jagadhri, Tehsil Jagadhri District Yamuna Nagar ...Respondent BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE MR. VINAY KUMAR, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. R. K. Dhawan, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. B.L. Verma, Advocate Pronounced on_10th September, 2012 ORDER
JUSTICE J.M. MALIK
1. The unsavoury story emanating from the record about the betrayal of a bank, cheating and defrauding of its account holder, is this.
2. This revision petition has been filed by the Punjab National Bank/OP 2. Bhupinder Singh, the complainant is an account holder with the Punjab National Bank at its branch office Bawana, Road, Jagadhri. The complainant was given limit loan facility subject to his depositing six Kisan Vikas Patras, on 06.07.1999. The Patras were to mature after six years from 06.07.2005. On maturity of these Kisan Vikas Patras, the complainant was to receive an amount of Rs.60,000/- from the Post Office.
3. On 29.12.2004, OP2 issued a draft in the sum of Rs.11,500/- in the name of Sh. Bhupinder Kaushik of Chandigarh from the account of the complainant, Sh. Bhupinder Singh.
The complainant was not aware of this transaction and did not issue any such draft in the name of anybody. When he picked up a conflict with the Branch Manager, OP2, he deposited an amount of Rs.11,500/- in the account of the complainant on 29.01.005 of his own accord. He tried to smother a crime.
4. It also transpired that the above said six Kisan Vikas Patras were got encashed before the maturity, from the post office and an amount of Rs.56,100/- was got deposited in the above referred account of the complainant, without the knowledge and consent of the complainant. It also came to light that on the first occasion when the Kisan Vikas Patras were presented before the Post Office, an objection was raised by the Post Office that no signatures by the concerned holder existed. They returned the Kisan Vikas Patras to the Bank. Thereafter, those Kisan Vikas Patras were got signed from somebody by the Branch Manager and he received the above said amount. The complainant was paid Rs.3,900/- less, on 06.07.2005. Under the circumstances, the complaint was filed before the District Forum.
5. The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the respondents to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of loss suffered due to encashment of Kisan Vikas Patras and on account of unfair trade practice on their part by withdrawing an amount of Rs.11,500/- of the complainants and encashed the Kisan Vikas Patras by signing on the Kisan Vikas Patras themselves and to pay Rs.3,300/- as cost of litigation. Aggrieved by that order, the appeal was preferred before the State Commission. The State Commission dismissed the appeal, with costs of Rs.10,000/- which was to be paid to the complainant. Aggrieved by the order of the State Commission, the present revision petition has been filed.
6. We have heard Sh. R.K. Dhawan, Advocate for the petitioner and Sh. B.L. Verma, Advocate on behalf of the respondent. Sh. Dhawan did not pick up a conflict with the facts of this case. He vehemently argued that the only amount involved in this case is Rs.4-5 thousand and for that, the complainant has been awarded a sum of Rs.50-60 thousand. This is a case of wrong enrichment of the complainant. He argued that the action is being taken against the Branch Manager, but could not inform this Commission, as to what action has been taken against him even after the elapse of 7 years. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent, vehemently argued that the bank has committed gross willful default and caused mental torture to the complainant.
7. The banks are constituted to serve the people properly. The people of this country have reposed enormous faith in the banks. The learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to make light of such like serious criminal offences. The higher authorities are prone to turn a Nelsons eye to indispline in the Branch rather than tackling the issue by taking the bull by horns.
Unfortunately, ours is not a criminal court. For such like offences, codging punishment is called for. It appears that the Branch Manager has committed series of criminal offence. The omissions and commissions on the banks part must have caused problems to the complaint without number. For such kind of harassment and mental torture, the complainant deserves this much compensation.
8. It may be mentioned here that while issuing notice of admission to the respondent, we, due to inadvertence, missed to make an order for pre-case litigation charges in favour of the respondent. Normally, litigation charges from Rs.5,000/- upto Rs.10,000/- are ordered. That order could not find place in our summoning order due to inadvertence. We, therefore, dismiss the revision petition with costs of Rs.10,000/- payable by the petitioner to the respondent, directly by means of a demand draft, within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order.
9. The bank is further directed to pay Rs.15,000/- as costs to be deposited with the Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission, within six weeks from the date of receipt of this order, else the Registry and the Executing Court will take care.
10. Registry to file compliance report within 12 weeks from today. It is also made clear that in case the said costs on both the counts are not deposited, within the stipulated period, it would carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. till their realization.
....
(J.M. MALIK, J.) PRESIDING MEMBER .
(VINAY KUMAR) MEMBER md/2