State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Pnb Kangra vs Joginder Pal on 12 June, 2007
H H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SHIMLA CAMP AT DHARAMSHALA. Appeal No. 11/2007. Date of Decision 12.06.2007. 1. The Punjab National Bank Kangra Branch Kangra, H.P. through its Branch Manager, 2. Punjab National Bank a body corporate Constituted under banking companies (Acquisition and transfer of undertaking) Act, having its Head Office at 7-Bhikaji Cama Palace, New Delhi, through its Regional Manager, Punjab National Bank, Regional Office, Dharamshala, H.P. . Appellants. Versus Joginder Pal S/o Sh. Mohan Lal, Partner M/s Joginder Pal & Company Vill. Birta, District Kangra, H.P. . Respondent Honble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Goel, President. Honble Mr. Narinder Singh Thakur, Member. Honble Mrs. Saroj Sharma, Member. Whether Approved for reporting? For the Appellants. Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate with Mr. Vijay Kumar, Deputy Manager, PNB at its DO, Kangra For the Respondent. Mr. Rajesh Arora, Advocate. O R D E R:
Justice Arun Kumar Goel (Retd.) President (Oral) Firm M/s Joginder Pal & Co., of which Joginder Pal is one of the partner, was having a bank account with the appellant-bank at its Kangra Branch. Vide Annexure OP-1, dated 29.9.2003 he informed the Branch Manager at Kangra on the subject for blocking the payment. Contents of this communication are as under:-
With regards, I beg to state that I Joginder Pal bearing account No. 449 in your bank. I am requesting you that which cheques I have given on those no payment may be drawn.
I shall be very thankful to you for this act of kindness.
Thanks.
Yours faithfully,
2. On receipt of this communication from the respondent, endorsement made by the Branch Manager was Freezed This endorsement is also of 29.9.2003.
3. Now the disputes start. Respondent after the issuance of this letter admittedly issued cheque payable to self, No. RSQ 218400 in the sum of Rs. 3,72,000/-, its photostat copy is Annexure OP-3. Since it was payable to self, one Tara encashed it. Issuance of this cheque is admitted, but why it was encashed is disputed by the respondent.
4. In this background respondent submitted that after the account was freezed no cheque could be honoured for payment from this account. Since there was deficiency in service, after he came to know that the cheque of Rs. 3,72,000/- was encashed on 12.4.2004, he filed complaint No. 400/2004. Before filing the complaint legal notice was issued Annexure C-3 which was duly replied to as per the appellants.
Allegations made by the respondent that he contacted the branch manager on telephone not to pay any cheque were denied. Amongst other things it is also pleaded by the appellants that respondent is not a consumer as he is a dealer in whole sale liquor, therefore, there is no consumer dispute. Both parties filed affidavits and finally impugned order has been passed, hence this appeal by the appellants.
5. Mr. Ajay Sharma learned counsel for the appellants urged that so far his clients are concerned, no fault can be found with their action in having encashed the cheque, issuance whereof was conceded by the learned counsel for the respondent before us at the time of hearing. This cheque is dated 12.4.2004, whereas instructions regarding freezing of the account are of 29.9.2003. One can very well appreciate that the account was freezed as is made out from endorsement made on behalf of the respondent then it was on that date. Thereafter the respondent on his own showing started operating the account in question. Cheque was issued only deposit of amount by the respondent, why it was issued, could not be explained by him. Moreover the letter sent by the respondent is silent qua the cheques, he may issue in future.
6. In case the account had been frozen then there is no question of any amount being deposited and or cheque being issued as in the present case because before issuing the cheque dated 12.4.2004 respondent had admittedly deposited Rs. 3,75,000/- by means of bank draft on 7.11.2003. In addition to this there is nothing said in the letter under reference that the cheques those may be issued after its date i.e. 29.9.2003, are to be encashed or not. And it is not the case in particular, of the respondent that he had not issued the cheque in question and or not deposited the Rs. 3,75,000/- as mentioned above. In case the cheque was not intended to be encashed payable to self, there was no occasion for the respondent to have issued the cheque in question and or deposited the amount. Confronted with this situation specifically Mr. Arora learned counsel for the respondent stated that instruction to remain in operation till perpetuity and was to continue for all times to come. In these circumstances the payment could not have been made, therefore, the respondent acted against the interest of both the parties and not in consonance with the accepted and adopted banking practice. These pleas have not merit. Reason being that when the account was freezed, it stood for all purposes, not only for payment of cheques. Deposit could also be not made in it. Thus by his conduct, the respondent made the account functional In these circumstances, we are of the view that payment of the cheques issued till 30.9.2003 was only stopped, whereas cheques of subsequent dates had to be encashed for the reasons set out hereinabove.
7. No other point is urged.
In view of the aforesaid discussions, this appeal deserves to be allowed and as a result of it, impugned order is set aside and consequently Complaint No. 400/2004 filed by the respondent before District Forum Kangra at Dharamshala stands dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
All interim orders passed from time to time in this appeal shall stand vacated forthwith.
Office will make available a copy of this order to the parties free of costs as per rules.
Dharamshala.
12th June, 2007. (Justice Arun Kumar Goel) Retd.
President.
(Narinder Singh Thakur), Member.
(Saroj Sharma), Karan* Member.