State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Er. Balbir Singh vs Kewal Garg on 4 August, 2015
FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.601 of 2012
Date of Institution: 15.05.2012.
Date of Decision: 04.08.2015.
Er. Balbir Singh, Assistant Executive Engineer, B-91, Thermal
Colony, Bathinda.
.....Appellant/complainant
Versus
1. Sh. Kewal Garg, Manager, State Bank of Patiala, GNDTP
Branch, Bathinda.
2. Sh. Sushil Kumar, Asstt. General Manager, Zonal Office,
SBOP, Amrik Singh Road, Bathinda.
3. Gurmail Singh S/o Sh. Pritam Singh, Sucha Singh Nagar,
Street no.1, Bathinda.
.....Respondents/opposite parties
First appeal against order dated
28.03.2012 passed by the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal
Forum, Bathinda.
Quorum:-
Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.
Shri H.S. Guram, Member.
Present:-
For the appellant :
Sh. H.S. Saggu, Advocate.
For respondent nos.1 & 2 :
Sh. Vijay Kumar Garg,
Advocate
For respondent no.3 : None
.............................................. J. S. KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER:-
The appellant of this appeal (the complainant in the complaint) has directed this appeal against respondents herein (the First Appeal No.601 of 2012 2 opposite parties in the complaint), assailing order dated 28.03.2012 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Bathinda (in short, "the District Forum"), dismissing the complaint of the complainant.
2. Complainant Balbir Singh has filed the complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short "Act") against the OPs on the averments that Gurmail Singh OP no.3 applied for a plot to PUDA by getting loan of Rs.2,40,000/- from State Bank of Patiala (SBOP), GNDTP Branch, Bathinda on 21.01.2011. The complainant was the guarantor for that loan. Gurmail Singh was subordinate employee of the complainant in Thermal Bathinda. The complainant found the economic condition of Gurmail Singh in doll drums after 2-3 months. The complainant decided and managed Gurmail Singh to cancel the plot before draw. The plot application was cancelled by PUDA and the amount of Rs.2,40,000/- was deposited in personal saving account no.55016559871 of complainant by DAC Branch SBOP Bathinda, but the loan amount was not adjusted in loan account and the whole amount of Rs.2,40,000/- was given to Gurmail Singh in the absence of complainant. The complainant was guarantor for this loan and was in great shock after learning about it. The complainant informed the concerned bank branch OP no.1, orally as well as in writing on various dates i.e. 08.06.2011, 09.06.2011, 16.06.2011, 23.08.2011 and 14.10.2011 that Gurmail Singh withdrew the amount of First Appeal No.601 of 2012 3 Rs.2,40,000/- fraudulently from the bank. It was the negligence on the part of bank to permit the withdrawal of the amount in the account of Gurmail Singh. OP no.1 made no enquiry to ascertain from where this large amount came in the account of Gurmail Singh. It was further averred by the complainant that in the year 2011, Gurmail Singh was in good terms and he took Rs.16,000/- as loan from the complainant and gave signed debit voucher for withdrawal. OP no.1 recovered the whole amount of Rs.2,40,000/- from the salary of Gurmail Singh. The complainant asked the Bank Manager to make the payment of Rs.16,000/- to him on debit voucher, but he declined. The complainant has filed the complaint against the OPs claiming compensation on account of negligence of the Bank.
3. OP nos.1 and 2 appeared and filed joint written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant raising legal objections that complaint is not maintainable in the present Forum. Any deficiency in service on the part of answering OPs was vehemently denied in the written reply. The complaint is alleged to be bad for non-joinder of the parties. It was further averred that the complainant and Gurmail Singh were in collusion with each other and they filed the complaint in active connivance. On merits, the answering OPs admitted this fact that Gurmail Singh applied for a plot with PUDA by getting loan of Rs.2,40,000/- from the OP bank. It was also admitted that the complainant stood guarantor for him. Gurmail Singh was First Appeal No.601 of 2012 4 having his saving bank account no.55016559871 with OP bank. It was further averred that Gurmail Singh got the plot cancelled from PUDA and the amount of Rs.2,39,500/- was deposited in his saving bank account. The concerned branch had no knowledge regarding the fact that Bank has intimated the complainant on 02.01.2012. It was further pleaded that the intention between the complainant and the Gurmail Singh was to defraud the Bank, but Gurmail Singh has defrauded the complainant. The complainant is not entitled to withdraw the amount. The OP bank has recovered the amount from the salary of Gurmail Singh with its own efforts and the answering OPs have nothing to do with the alleged withdrawal of the amount of Rs.16,000/-. The complainant gave photocopy of two blank slips, one of withdrawal form and the other of two debit slips form to the Bank on 02.01.2012, but Gurmail Singh intimated the Bank on 27.12.2011 that the complainant has got his signatures on some blank slips of the Bank and requested the Bank not to clear the amount on that slips. OP nos.1 and 2 prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. OP no.3 was set ex-parte before District Forum.
4. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavits Ex.C-12 and Ex.C-13 alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to C-11 and closed the evidence. As against it, OP nos.1 & 2 tendered in evidence the affidavit of Sh. Kewal Garg, Manager Ex.R-4 alongwith documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-3 and closed the evidence thereafter. On First Appeal No.601 of 2012 5 conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum Bathinda dismissed the complaint of the complainant by virtue of order dated 28.03.2012. Dissatisfied with the above order, the complainant, now appellant has carried this appeal against the same.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and respondent nos.1 and 2, as none appeared on behalf of respondent no.3. We have also examined the record of the case and examined the facta probanda of both the parties in this case. The evidence has also been adverted to by us on the record. Ex.C-1 is the copy of letter dated 08.06.2011 by the complainant to the Manager of OP bank for adjustment of the amount of Rs.2,40,000/-. Ex.C-2 is the copy of another letter dated 09.06.2011 sent by the complainant to the Manager of concerned bank. Ex.C-3 is the copy of letter dated 16.06.2011 from complainant to the Manager of concerned bank regarding the adjustment of the loan amount. Ex.C-4 is the copy of letter dated 23.08.2011 sent by the complainant to the Manager of concerned bank.Ex.C-5 is letter dated 14.10.2011 from complainant to the Divisional Manager of SBOP Bathinda. Ex.C-6 is the copy of the letter dated 26.11.2011 addressed to complainant by the OP to the effect that his liability, as guarantor came to an end. Ex.C-7 is copy of letter dated 27.12.2011 from Gurmail Singh to Manager of OP bank stating that complainant obtained his signatures on the slips, which were blank without any date on it. He put the bank on First Appeal No.601 of 2012 6 qui vibe, so that his signatures on blank slips be not misused by the complainant. Ex.C-8 is the copy of letter dated 02.01.2012 from complainant to the Manager of OP bank regarding payment of Rs.16,000/-. Photocopies of blank slips are Ex.C-9 and C-10. We find that only account number is recorded in it, otherwise they are lying absolutely blank. The letter dated 02.01.2012 from Manager of OP bank to the complainant is Ex.C-11 to the effect that complainant should directly interact with Gurmail Singh with regard to his money, if any. Ex.C-12 and C-13, are the affidavits of the complainant on the record.
6. To rebut this evidence, the OP nos. 1 and 2 placed reliance on account statement of Gurmail Singh Ex.R-1, pertaining account no.65106158567. Ex.R-2, the copy of loan account statement of Gurmail Singh OP no.3 and Ex.R-3 is the copy of transfer order of Manager Kewal Garg. Ex.R-4 is the affidavit of Kewal Garg Manager of OP bank.
7. From evaluation of above referred evidence on the record and hearing the submissions of counsel for the parties carefully, we hold that the order of the District Forum suffers from no illegality. Admittedly, the loan was taken by Gurmail Singh OP no.3 from OP bank for purchase of plot from PUDA to the extent of Rs.2,40,000/-. The said plot was got cancelled and money was refunded to Gurmail Singh OP no.3 in his account by PUDA. Gurmail First Appeal No.601 of 2012 7 Singh withdrew the said amount from his account. The OP bank recovered the amount from the salary of Gurmail Singh. The complainant requested the OP bank that Gurmail Singh took a loan of Rs.16,000/- from him and he gave two debit vouchers to the complainant for withdrawal of the amount of Rs.16,000/- The debits vouchers are blank, they have not been filled, only signatures of Gurmail Singh existed on them, as noticed by us. Gurmail Singh wrote letter Ex.C-7 to the OP bank asking it that complainant be not permitted to withdraw any amount, because the fraud has been played with Gurmail Singh by the complainant. Ex.C-9 and C-10 are the withdrawal forms having the signatures of Gurmail Singh without any date thereon. We find that there is no substantive evidence on the record to establish the version of the complainant that Gurmail Singh took the loan from the complainant of Rs.16,000/- and issued the withdrawal voucher to him. Consequently, we find no deficient service or unfair trade practice on the part of OPs in this case. The OP bank had to act on the instructions of OP no.3 Gurmail Singh, the account holder, which have rightly been done by the OP bank in this case. The order of the District Forum Bathinda suffers from no illegality and material infirmity in our view and the same is affirmed in this appeal.
8. As a consequence of our above discussions, we find no merit in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. First Appeal No.601 of 2012 8
9. Arguments in this appeal were heard on 28.07.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(J. S. KLAR) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (H.S.GURAM) MEMBER August 04, 2015.
(MM)