State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Tara Singh Gill vs Punjab And Sind Bank on 13 June, 2017
FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.
1) First Appeal No.833 of 2016
Date of Institution: 01.11.2016.
Reserved on : 12.06.2017
Date of Decision : 13.06.2017.
Tara Singh Gill, Advocate s/o Banta Singh r/o # 107, Phase II, Preet
Nagar, Ferozepur City, Tehsil and District Ferozepur.
..Appellant/Complainant
Versus
1. Punjab and Sind Bank, 65, The Mall, Jhoke Road, Ferozepur
Cantt. Ferozepur Cantt.
2. HDFC Bank Limited Branch SCF No.78-79, Sector 8-C, Madhya
Marg, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager.
3. Chawla Publication, Private Ltd., Chandigarh and through its
M.D., SCO No.117-118, Ground Floor, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh.
.......Respondents/Opposite Parties
First appeal against order dated
08.09.2016 passed by the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal
Forum, Ferozepur.
Quorum:-
Sh. J.S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.
Smt.Surinder Pal Kaur, Member Present:-
For the appellant : Sh.P.K.Bansal, Advocate
For respondents No.1&3 : Ex-parte
For respondent No.2 : Sh.Sunil Narang, Advocate
First Appeal No.833 of 2016 2
AND
2) First Appeal No.38 of 2017
Date of Institution: 16.01.2017.
Reserved on : 12.06.2017
Date of Decision: 13.06.2017.
The Manager, HDFC Bank Ltd. SCO No.78-79, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager.
.....Appellant/Opposite Party No.2 Versus
1. Sh.Tara Singh Gill, Advocate s/o Banta Singh Gill, resident of 107, Phase II, Preet Nagar, Ferozepur City, Tehsil and District Ferozepur.
.......Respondent No.1/complainant
2. Punjab and Sind Bank, 65, The Mall, Jhoke Road, Ferozepur Cantt. Through its Branch Manager.
3. Chawla Publication, Private Limited, Chandigarh and through its M.D., SCO No.117-118, Ground Floor, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh.
....Respondents No.2&3/Opposite Parties No.1&3 First appeal against order dated 08.09.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ferozepur.
Quorum:-
Sh. J.S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member. Smt.Surinder Pal Kaur, Member Present:-
For the appellant : Sh.Sunil Narang, Advocate For respondent No.1 : Sh.P.K.Bansal, Advocate For respondent No.2 : None For respondent No.3 : Ex-parte ................................................... First Appeal No.833 of 2016 3 J. S. KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER:-
By this common order, we intend to dispose of the above referred cross appeals, First Appeal No.833 of 2016 and another First Appeal no.38 of 2017 together, as they have arisen out of the same order of District Forum Ferozepur dated 08.09.2016 and can be disposed of together. The order shall be pronounced by us in main first appeal no.833 of 2016 titled as "Tara Singh Gill Vs. Punjab and Sind Bank & Ors.", which has been filed by the complainant, now appellant, for enhancement of amount of compensation and also of rate of interest. The appellant of this appeal is complainant before the District Forum Ferozepur in original complaint and respondents of this appeal are OPs therein and they be referred as such, hereinafter, for the sake of convenience.
2. First appeal no.38 of 2017 has been filed by the appellant against order dated 08.09.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ferozepur (in short 'the District Forum'), accepting the complaint of Tara Singh Gill by directing OP No.2 now appellant of this appeal to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony, pain and harassment as well as litigation expenses to the complainant. The above order of District Forum Ferozepur has been sought to be set aside in this appeal by the appellant. The appellant of this appeal is OP No.2 in the complaint and respondent No.1 of this appeal is complainant in the original complaint before the District Forum and respondents No.2&3 are Ops No.1&3 therein First Appeal No.833 of 2016 4 and they be referred as such, hereinafter, for the sake of convenience.
3. Complainant-Tara Singh Gill filed the complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OPs on the averments, that he purchased some books from OP No.3 at Ferozepur and issued cheque No.141867 amounting to Rs.5,000/-
dated 30.04.2013 to be payable from his account No.10973, as price thereof. OP No.3 presented the said cheque in the branch of OP No.2-HDFC Bank for encashment in account No.01078970000020. OP No.2 issued memo dated 07.05.2013 with the remarks 'insufficient funds' to OP No.3 regarding above said cheque. There were sufficient funds in the account of the complainant, when the above memo was issued by OP No.2 with the remarks 'insufficient funds' to OP No.3. Complainant sent legal notice to OP No.2 dated 18.06.2013, which was sent through registered notice on 01.07.2013. The complainant is consumer of OPs. He alleged deficiency in service on the part of OPs, which cast a slur on his reputation. Complainant has, thus, filed complaint praying for compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for deficiency in service from OPs with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of complaint till its realization.
4. Upon notice, OP No.1 filed its written reply by raising preliminary objections that consumer fora has no jurisdiction to try the complaint and it is not maintainable. On merits, it was averred that OP No.3 presented cheque in question to OP No.2 for its First Appeal No.833 of 2016 5 encashment in its account. This fact was denied for want of knowledge as to whether OP No.2 issued a memo dated 07.05.2013 returning the cheque with the remarks "insufficient funds". This fact was admitted that there was balance amount of Rs.3,18,197/- on 07.05.2013 in the account of the complainant with OP No.1 bank. This fact was denied for want of knowledge, as to whether complainant had issued notice dated 18.06.2013 to OP No.2 bank. It was averred that the cheque was not presented with OP No.1 by OP No.2 bank for its payment. On inquiry from Punjab and Sind Bank at Chandigarh, it was revealed that cheque in question was presented under CTS clearing system at Chandigarh by OP No.2 in Punjab and Sind Bank, Central Clearing Processing Cell at Chandigarh and on receiving the image of the cheque in Inward Clearing System, the said Cell of the bank rejected the cheque on the ground "Signature not scanned". OP No.2 bank issued a wrong cheque return memo to OP No.3 on its own, which is gross negligence on a part of OP No.2. A copy of the Inward Clearing Transaction Maintenance showed the reasons for rejecting the cheque for its payment by Central Clearing Processing Cell at Chandigarh of Punjab and Sind bank. The cheque was returned on the ground "Signatures not scanned" and not on the ground, as alleged by OP No.3. OP No.1 denied any deficiency in service on its part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5. OP No.2 filed its separate written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant by denying any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on its part. It alleged that the complaint is First Appeal No.833 of 2016 6 not maintainable. It further averred that consumer fora has no jurisdiction to try the complaint. On merits, it was averred that in new system called "Cheque Truncation System(CTS) for clearing the cheque, there is no need to send the physical cheque to drawee bank under CTS system and cheque return reasons are received by presenting banks based only on electronic data sent by the drawee bank. The presenting bank prints the return memo for the customer. In the present case also, OP No.2 is only a presenting bank and reason for dishonor of cheque was based on the data sent by the drawee bank i.e. OP No.1 and this reason for dishonor of cheque was on the grounds of 'insufficient funds' which was printed on return memo by OP No.2. Thus, Op No.2 has no role in stating the reasons for dishonor of cheque on the return memo. Chandigarh Regional Collection Centre of OP No.1 replied by stating that Cheque No.141867 for Rs.5,000/- was of Ferozepur Branch, which was presented for Inward clearing no 07.05.2013 and returned with reasons than other reasons, "Sign not scanned". OP No.2 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
6. OP No.3 was set ex-parte before the District Forum, vide order dated 07.10.2013.
7. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, and documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-6 and closed the evidence. As against it, OP No.1 tendered in evidence, the affidavit of Sunil Kumar, Branch Manager Ex.OP1/1 and document Ex.OP1/2 closed the evidence. OP No.2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Tejinder Singh, Branch First Appeal No.833 of 2016 7 Manager Ex.OP2/1 and documents Ex.OP2/2 to Ex.OP2/4 and closed the evidence. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum allowed the complaint of the complainant, as referred to above. Dissatisfied with the above order of District Forum Ferozepur, complainant now appellant has directed this appeal against the same.
8. The foremost point as canvassed is as to whether District Forum Ferozepur was competent to entertain the complaint or not. The purchase of order of books was issued at Ferozepur. The cheque was issued at Ferozepur by the complainant to OP No.3. Complainant has his account in OP No.1 bank at Ferozepur, wherefrom the amount of cheque was to be withdrawn. The cause of action, thus, arrived at Ferozepur partly and District Forum Ferozepur is invested with jurisdiction to try the complaint.
9. Pleadings of the parties have been carefully appraised by us on the record. Affidavit of complainant is Ex.C-1 on the record. Ex.C- 2 is cheque dated 30.04.2013 bearing No.141867 for sum of Rs.5,000/- payable to OP No.3 issued by complainant. Ex.C-3 is return memo sent by OP No.2 bank to OP No.3 with the remarks 'insufficient funds' in the account. Complainant sent legal notice dated 18.06.2013, vide Ex.C-4 supported by postal receipt Ex.C-5. Copy of statement of account is Ex.C-6 on the record. Op No.1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Amrit Singh Cheema, Sr.Manager of Punjab and Sind Bank on the record. This witness testified that amount of Rs.3,18,197/- was available in the account of the First Appeal No.833 of 2016 8 complainant on 07.05.2013 in the bank of OP No.1. He further stated that no such cheque was presented to OP No.1 for encashment on that date. He admitted this fact in para 4 of the affidavit that complainant is customer of OP No.1, since he maintained his savings bank account with it. Ex.OP1/2 is statement of account of the complainant maintained by OP No.1. Sunil Kumar tendered his affidavit Ex.OP1/1 in evidence on the record. This affidavit reveals, as deposed by him, that on inquiry from Punjab and Sind Bank, it was found that cheque in question was presented to it in CTS by OP No.2, CTS at Chandigarh and on receiving the image of the cheque in Inward Clearing System, the said Cell of the bank rejected the cheque on the ground "Signature not scanned". The said bank issued a wrong cheque return memo to OP No.3 on its own, which is a gross negligence on the part of OP No.2, a copy of the Inward Clearing Transaction Maintenance is on record showing the reasons for rejecting the cheque for its payment by Central Clearing Processing Cell at Chandigarh. This witness stated that it is negligence of OP No.2 bank to issue the cheque return memo on the ground of insufficient funds in the account of complainant, which is against facts. This witness further stated that copy of inward clearing System showed the reason for rejecting the cheque in its CTS at Chandigarh and also showed that on 07.05.2013, the cheque in question was returned/rejected on the ground "Signature not scanned" only, and not on the ground of insufficient funds. Ex.OP1/2 is the inward Clearing Transaction Maintenance by Punjab and Sind Bank to this effect. Cheque was dishonoured on the ground First Appeal No.833 of 2016 9 signature not scanned in Inward Clearing Transaction Maintenance on 29.06.2015 of Punjab and Sind Bank, to whom it was sent for clearance. Ex.OP1/1 has thus proved that ground for dishonouring the cheque in the Inward Clearing Transaction Maintenance by Punjab and Sind Bank is "signature not scanned" only. Ex.OP2/1 is affidavit of Tejinder Singh, Branch Manager denying any deficiency in service on its part.
10. From critical analysis of evidence on the record, we find that there was sufficient balance in the account of the complainant on the crucial date of honouring of cheque. OP No.3 presented that cheque to OP No.2 at Chandigarh and it was sent to Inward Clearing Transaction Maintenance of Punjab and Sind Bank. It was not honourned on account of signatures not scanned only. OP No.2 has not sent the cheque return memo to OP No.3 with the same remarks that "signatures not scanned". OP No.2 on its own sent cheque memo with different remarks 'insufficient funds', which is negligence on its part. OP No.1 sent the cheque memo to OP No.2 with remarks signatures not scanned and hence no deficiency in service is there on its part. We fail to understand as to how OP No.2 of its own sent memo to OP No.3 with different remarks 'insufficient funds', which could reflect on the reputation of the complainant adversely in the system, where he works. The cheque was actually not honoured due to signatures not scanned, vide Inward Clearing Transaction Maintenance of OP No.1. OP No.2 in negligent and deficient manner returned the cheque memo with separate remarks 'insufficient funds, First Appeal No.833 of 2016 10 which were not received by it from OP No.1. We find deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2, since the reputation of practicing Advocate has been put on stake, hence award of compensation of Rs.50,000/- is quite reasonable in this case to be payable by OP No.2 to him. We have not come across any illegality or flaw in the order of District Forum Ferozepur dated 08.09.2016 to interfere in it. The order of the lower Forum under challenge in this appeal is affirmed.
11. As a corollary of our above discussion, we find no merit in First Appeal No.38 of 2017 and the same is hereby dismissed. Another First appeal No.833 of 2016 is also dismissed.
12. The appellant of first appeal no.38 of 2015 had deposited the amount of Rs.25,000/- and thereafter another sum of Rs.6,000/- as cost for condonation of delay was deposited as per the directions of this Commission. The registry is hereby directed to remit Rs.25,000/- + Rs.6000/- as amount of cost alongwith interest, which accrued thereon, if any, to respondent No.1 being complainant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days from this order provided there is no stay order by the Higher Forum. Remaining amount shall be paid by OP No.2 to the complainant within 45 days period from the date of receipt of copy of the order.
13. Arguments in above referred appeals were heard on 12.06.2017 and the order was reserved. Certified copies of orders be communicated to the parties under rules.
First Appeal No.833 of 2016 11
14. The appeals could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(J. S. KLAR) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (SURINDER PAL KAUR) MEMBER June 13, 2017.
Rupinder-2