State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
State Bank Of India. vs Sh. Hem Raj Gupta. on 4 May, 2015
H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
SHIMLA.
First Appeal No.343/2014
Date of Presentation: 26.09.2014
Date of Decision: 04.05.2015
..................................................................................
State Bank of India,
Branch Mandi Town,
District Mandi, H.P.,
Through its Branch Manager.
.......... Appellant.
Versus
Hem Raj Gupta,
Proprietor of M/s. Banarsi Dass & Sons,
Village & Post Office Baggi,
Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, H.P.
.......... Respondent.
.........................................................................................
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, President
Hon'ble Mrs. Prem Chauhan, Member
Hon'ble Mr. Vijay Pal Khachi, Member
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the Appellant: Mr. Arvind Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Digvijay Singh, Advocate.
..............................................................................
O R D E R:
Justice Surjit Singh, President (Oral) Appellant's grievance is against the order dated 21.08.2014, of learned District 1 Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order?
State Bank of India Versus Hem Raj Gupta (F.A. No.343/2014) _____________________________________________________ Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mandi, whereby, a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, filed against it by respondent, Hem Raj Gupta, has been allowed and a direction given to it, to credit an amount of `9.50 lacs in the account of the respondent, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from the date of complaint, to the date of deposit and also to pay `10,000/-, as compensation and a sum of `4,000/-, as cost of complaint.
2. Respondent, Hem Raj Gupta, had an account with the appellant Bank. On 24.06.2009, he delivered a cheque in the sum of `9.50 lacs, bearing No.503822, at the appellant Bank. The amount of the cheque was immediately credited in the account of the respondent, the number of which was 11056518062. In the month of July, 2009, when the respondent, per allegation in the complaint, received statement of account from the appellant, he came to know that entry of `9.50 lacs had been reversed. Thereafter, he had been Page 2 of 8 State Bank of India Versus Hem Raj Gupta (F.A. No.343/2014) _____________________________________________________ requesting the appellant verbally, as also through writings, to credit the amount of `9.50 lacs, in his account, or to explain the debit entry, but he got no response. Finally, he sent a letter dated 04.06.2013, copy Annexure C-2, which was replied to by the appellant, vide Annexure R-2, which is dated 17.06.2013. There is one more letter written, which is undated and the copy of this letter is Annexure C-3.
3. Respondent filed a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, before the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mandi, seeking a direction to the appellant to credit an amount of `9.50 lacs, in his account, with interest and also to pay compensation and litigation expenses, as aforesaid.
4. Appellant contested the complaint and pleaded that on the very day of the presentation of cheque and making of credit entry in the account of the respondent, the person who had issued the cheque, namely M/s. Mona Enterprises, who too Page 3 of 8 State Bank of India Versus Hem Raj Gupta (F.A. No.343/2014) _____________________________________________________ were their customers, approached the employees of the appellant and told that cheque had been stolen from their premises. It was also alleged that a partner of the said M/s. Mona Enterprises, visited the Bank alongwith the respondent, on that very day and the respondent withdrew the cheque, agreeing to destroy the same and debit entry was made in his account. Also, it was stated that the complaint was barred by time, as the reverse entry was made on 24.06.2009 itself, on which date credit entry was made and also because even according to the complainant, the respondent came to know about the reversal entry in July, 2009, when he received statement of account.
5. Learned District Forum, vide impugned order, has allowed the complaint and directed the appellant, as aforesaid.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
7. It is the respondent's own case that he came to know that credit entry of an amount of Page 4 of 8 State Bank of India Versus Hem Raj Gupta (F.A. No.343/2014) _____________________________________________________ `9.50 lacs, representing the amount of cheque, had been reversed, by making debit entry on the very day of the making of credit entry on 24.06.2009, when he received statement of account in July, 2009. That means, the respondent came to know about the alleged deficiency in service on the part of the appellant in July, 2009. It is alleged in the complaint that thereafter, the respondent had been making various representations verbally and also in writing to the appellant and when there was no response, he sent a letter, copy Annexure C-2, which is dated 04.06.2013, in response to which he received a letter Annexure R-2, wherein, it was stated that the amount had been wrongly credited in his account and, therefore, a debit entry had been made.
8. In this kind of cases, limitation begins to run from the date adverse entry is made in the account of a customer. Respondent, according to his own case, came to know about the alleged entry of debit in his account, in July, 2009. His plea that Page 5 of 8 State Bank of India Versus Hem Raj Gupta (F.A. No.343/2014) _____________________________________________________ he had been making verbal and written requests to the appellant for reversal of entry, would not make the cause of action continuing one, nor would his alleged verbal requests and writings, the dates of making of which have not been given, extend the limitation. It too well known a principle of law that once the limitation begins to run to subsequent event can stop it, which in other words means that fresh limitation cannot be claimed from some subsequent event, except where the statute itself permits, e.g. in the case of acknowledgment of debt or part payment of debt etc. etc. The complaint was, thus, hopelessly barred by time, when filed. Learned District Forum has not noticed this aspect of the matter, despite a specific plea having been raised by the appellant, in his reply, that the complaint was barred by time.
9. The above stated position apart, the appellant submitted affidavit of the Proprietor/ Partner of M/s. Mona Enterprises, who had issued the cheque and as per that affidavit, cheque had Page 6 of 8 State Bank of India Versus Hem Raj Gupta (F.A. No.343/2014) _____________________________________________________ been stealthily removed from the premises of M/s. Mona Enterprises by the respondent and when they received an SMS from the appellant about the debit of their account based on the cheque, in question, they immediately approached the appellant Bank, as also the respondent and the respondent agreed to take back the cheque from the Bank and to destroy the same and thereafter, both, he and the respondent went to the appellant's Bank, withdrew the cheque, which was destroyed by the respondent and debit entry was made to the account of the respondent. Respondent, for the reasons best known to him, did not choose to cross-examine the Proprietor/Partner of M/s. Mona Enterprises, whose affidavit was produced by the appellant.
10. In view of the above stated position, appeal is allowed, impugned order set aside and complaint of the respondent is dismissed with costs of `10,000/-.
11. The money, which has been deposited by the appellant with this Commission, be refunded Page 7 of 8 State Bank of India Versus Hem Raj Gupta (F.A. No.343/2014) _____________________________________________________ to it, together with upto date interest accrued thereon, by transfer into its bank account, on furnishing necessary particulars of the bank account.
12. A copy of the order be sent to each of the parties, free of cost, as per Rules.
(Justice Surjit Singh) President (Prem Chauhan) Member (Vijay Pal Khachi) Member May 04, 2015.
*dinesh* Page 8 of 8