State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Punjab And Sind Bank vs Mohar Singh on 20 February, 2014
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH First Appeal No. 49/2014 Date of Institution 12.02.2014 Date of Decision 20.02.2014 Punjab and Sind Bank, SCO 701, NAC, Manimajra, UT, Chandigarh, .Appellant/Opposite Party V E R S U S Mohar Singh s/o Sh.Rattan Singh r/o H.No.1296, Indira Colony, Manimajra, UT, Chandigarh. ...Respondent/Complainant BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT SH.DEV RAJ, MEMBER
SMT.PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER Argued by:
Smt.Adarsh Pal Kaur, Advocate for the appellant.
PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER This appeal is directed against the order dated 06.01.2014, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which it allowed the complaint filed by the complainant, and directed the Opposite Party (now appellant) as under:-
[a] To refund Rs.14,115/- which the Complainant was forced to pay to the Chandigarh Housing Board on account failure of OP-Bank to maintain his bank account properly;
[b] To pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- on account of deficiency in service;
[c] To pay Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation;
The above said order shall be complied within 45 days of its receipt by the Opposite Party; thereafter, it shall be liable for an interest @18% per annum on the amount mentioned in per sub-para [a] & [b] of para 13 above, apart from cost of litigation of Rs.5,000/-, from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid.
2. In brief, the facts of the case, are that the complainant was allotted Dwelling Unit No.1296 of EWS category in Indra Colony, Manimajra, Chandigarh, on hire purchase basis, by the Chandigarh Housing Board, vide allotment letter No.5800 dated 14.12.1993. The Chandigarh Housing Board fixed the monthly installment of the said Unit and the complainant continued to comply with the requirement of the Chandigarh Housing Board by remitting the due amount of installments to the authorized Bank (Opposite Party) and the latter, in turn, acknowledged the receipt of amount, so deposited by him. It was stated that the complainant had already deposited the total dues and submitted all the demanded documents, but instead of issuing No Due certificate, the Chandigarh Housing Board vide letter dated 7.6.2013 required him to deposit the amount of Rs.14,116/- towards the six un-remitted installments by the Opposite Party to the Chandigarh Housing Board. It was further stated that despite engaging in protracted correspondence with the Opposite Party, and Chandigarh Housing Board, nothing positive came out. It was further stated that the complainant never defaulted in the payment of dues and it was on account of non-maintenance of the proper accounts by the Opposite Party, he was forced to pay the penalty of Rs.14,116/-. It was further stated that the Opposite Party was deficient, in rendering service. When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed.
3. In its written reply, the Opposite Party admitted the factual matrix of the case. It was also admitted that it had been authorized by the Chandigarh Housing Board to receive payments made by the allottees and remit the same to its account. It was denied that amount claimed to be deposited by the complainant was left out and not remitted to the account of the Chandigarh Housing Board. The matter of non credit of installments, if any, was between the complainant and the Chandigarh Housing Board and the Opposite Party had nothing to do with the issuance of No Dues Certificate to him (complainant). It was further stated that no fault, as alleged by the complainant was attributable to the Opposite Party. It was further stated that, the Opposite Party was not deficient, in rendering service. The remaining allegations, were denied, being false.
4. The complainant filed replication, to the written statement, wherein, the averments, as contained in the complaint, were reiterated and those as alleged in the written statement, by the Opposite Party, were controverted.
5. The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.
6. After hearing the complainant, in person, Counsel for the Opposite Party, and, on going through the evidence and record of the case, the District Forum, allowed the complaint, as stated above.
7. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/Opposite Party.
8. We have heard the Counsel for the appellant, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully.
9. The Counsel for the appellant/Opposite Party submitted that in the affidavit of its Manager, the system of maintaining record of the cash deposited was explained. It was duly mentioned in the affidavit that the cash received in the Bank is first of all entered in the cash scroll book, by the concerned Clerk, who enters the amount, and gives cash scroll number, to the depositor. The depositor then deposits the cash with the cashier who enters the same in the cash book. The two books are tallied with each other and also with the total amount of cash received in a day and this system is followed by the Bank to check any error/omission and to prevent fraud. The scrutiny of these two books of account maintained by the bank in the ordinary course of business revealed that no cash, as claimed by the complainant, was received in the Bank on the relevant dates. Certified copies of these two books of account produced by the appellant at Ex.R-1 to R-5. However, we find no force in this submission of the Counsel for the appellant, because the complainant vide his letter dated 16.09.2011 sent to the appellant enclosed the counter foil slips bearing its stamp of the amounts deposited by him, on various dates viz 5.6.01, 01.10.01, 06.06.03, 05.09.05 and 10.04.06 for Rs.600/-, Rs.600/-, Rs.300/-, Rs.300/- and Rs.300/- respectively with Punjab & Sind Bank Manimajra SCO No.701, Manimajra (Kalka Road), 1424, One Room Incremental at Indira Colony, Manimajra. It could, thus, be said that there was no iota of doubt, regarding the deposit of such amounts with the appellant-Bank, by the complainant though it (Opposite Party) had been alleging that no amount was deposited with it. Since the amount of installments, referred to above, was proved to have been deposited by the complainant, if the same was not remitted by the Opposite Parties to the Chandigarh Housing Board, it was deficient in rendering service.
10. The Counsel for the appellant, further submitted that any information involving the accounts of the Bank was not given on the basis of any individual knowledge but on the basis of perusal of the record, available with it, and it is virtually not possible for any official to remember numerous entries made in the ledger during his tenure. This argument of the Counsel for the appellant, does not hold good due to the reason that there is cogent and convincing documentary evidence available, on record, regarding the deposit of the amounts by the complainant, which has not even been rebutted by the appellant. It may also be observed that the complainant had duly intimated to the Accounts Officer, Chandigarh Housing Board, Chandigarh vide letter dated 26.07.2011 at page 23 of the District Forum file, that he had deposited the amounts on respective dates, with the Punjab and Sind Bank against his account. The complainant requested for reconciliation of his account and to correct the missing credits, which the Bank failed to reconcile the same with the Chandigarh Housing Board. It is further evident from the record that the complainant entered a protracted correspondence not only with the Chandigarh Housing Board but also with the appellant to give him the No Due Certificate towards payments made against the said flat, but instead it (Chandigarh Housing Board) levied a penalty/interest of Rs.12,352/- on the disputed installments amount of Rs.1794/- vide Annexure C-2 forcing him to pay the same in order to retain the allotment under the EWS Scheme.
The complainant duly complied with the instructions of the EWS Scheme by depositing due amounts. In view of the above, we are of the considered view that the complainant never defaulted in the payment of dues as is evident from the statement of account, Annexure C-4 submitted by the Chandigarh Housing Board. The fault, if any, was on the part of the designated Bank i.e. the appellant due to which the complainant was forced to pay the penalty for which he was not at fault anywhere considering the status of being an allottee of EWS Scheme flat.
11. In view of the foregoing discussion, the District Forum was right in holding that the Opposite Party was deficient, in rendering service, to the complainant. Hence, the order passed by the District Forum, being based on correct appreciation of evidence and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.
12. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.
13. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
14. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion Pronounced.
20.02.2014 sd/-
[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER [RETD.] PRESIDENT Sd/- [DEV RAJ] MEMBER Sd/-
[PADMA PANDEY] MEMBER cmg APPEAL No.49 of 2014 Argued by:
Smt.Adarsh Pal Kaur, Advocate for the appellant.
Dated _20th __ February, 2014
-.-
Vide our detailed order of the even date recorded separately, the appeal is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs and the order of the District Forum is upheld as per the directions contained therein.
[DEV RAJ] MEMBER [JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD)] PRESIDENT [PADMA PANDEY] MEMBER cmg cmg