State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
1. Surinder Bansal Son Of Shri Sohan Lal ... vs 2. Madhu Bansal Wife Of Surinder Bansal ... on 2 February, 2012
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA First Appeal No.349 of 2010 Date of Institution: 17.03.2010 Date of Decision: 02.02.2012 1. Surinder Bansal son of Shri Sohan Lal Bansal, Resident of Quarter No.D-1, Old Sessions Court Complex, Ambala City. 2. Madhu Bansal wife of Surinder Bansal son of Shri Sohan Lal Bansal, Resident of Quarter No.D-1, Old Sessions Court Complex, Ambala City. Appellants (Complainants) Versus 1. Punjab National Bank, Sector-17, ( Bank Square) Chandigarh through its Regional Manager. 2. Punjab National Bank, model Town, Branch Ambala City, through its Branch Manager. Respondents (Ops) BEFORE: Honble Mr. Justice R.S. Madan, President. Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member. For the Parties: Shri Brijender Kaushik, Advocate for appellants. Shri Ravi Kant, Advocate for respondents. O R D E R
Justice R.S. Madan, President:
This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 14.01.2010 passed by District Consumer Forum, Ambala whereby complaint No.405/2007 filed by complainants (respondents herein) against the appellants-opposite parties has been dismissed.
The case of the complainants before the District Consumer Forum was that they were having a Joint Saving Bank Account No.01113505 with the respondent-opposite party No.2 (Bank). The complainant No.1 was the authorised signatory of their account and had issued a cheque of Rs.1,00,000/- in the name of one Ashok Kumar a close friend of the complainants, in discharge of their liability to pay the amount. However, later on complainants settled their claim with Ashok Kumar and demanded back the aforesaid cheque but the same was not returned by Ashok Kumar on the pretext that the same would not be misused.
The grievance of the complainants was that that the aforesaid Ashok Kumar presented the cheque in question to his bank and got encashed the same even after the validity date which had expired. Thus, the complainants alleged deficiency in service against the opposite parties and sought direction to pay the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of encashment of cheque till its realization; to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- for harassment, mental agony and harassment and Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses.
Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and contested the complaint by filing written statement stating therein that the cheque in question was encahsed in accordance with the statutory provisions, policy and practice of the Bank under the directives of the R.B.I. and the consideration amount of the cheque was paid by the opposite party No.2 to the Oriental Bank of Commerce, Branch Ambala City and in case the cheque amount would not be encashed, it would have attracted the criminal liability of the complainants under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act.
The complainants never stopped the payment of the cheque in question. Thus, the opposite parties denied any kind of deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence adduced on the record, District Consumer Forum finding no substance in the complainants version, dismissed the complaint. Hence this appeal.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.
On behalf of the appellants it has been argued that the appellants-complainants had issued cheque dated 05.10.2006 which was lapsed on 04.04.2007 and therefore there was no need to issue instructions to the Bank to stop the payment of the cheque.
However, the cheque was encashed on 12.04.2007 i.e. after the validity date which was upto 04.04.2007. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the appellants has drawn our attention towards the photo copies of the cheque at page 46 and 47.
The contention raised on behalf of the appellants-opposite parties is attractive in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The perusal of the impugned order reflects that the District Forum has merely relied upon the statement of Hand Writing Expart which is contrary to the statements made by Surinder Singh, Clerk of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Nabha as well as Rajinder Kumar, Clerk-cum-Cashier, Punjab National Bank, Nabha. Both the above named officials of the Bank have stated that the said cheque dated 05.10.2006 was firstly presented with Punjab National Bank, Nabha but the same was returned and was again sent for clearance with the Ambala Branch. Thus, from the statements of the bank officials it has been established on the record that in fact the cheque in question was dated 05.10.2006 but later on the bank officials to cover up their misdeed manipulated the date from 05.10.2006 to 15.10.2006 by prefixing figure 1 with the figure 5 so as to make it as 15.
In our view the statements made by the bank officials are cogent and convincing evidence than that of the expert opinion who was arranged by the opposite parties themselves for preparing the report.
Normally in cases of mis-placement of cheques, we award meagre compensation for deficiency in service on the part of the bank but in the instant case the officials of the bank have not only made manipulation in the cheque itself by writing the digit 1 before the digit 5 so as to make the payment already made by the bank as justifiable, whereas the other documents available on the file clearly depicts that the cheque which was deposited by Ashok Kumar was bearing issuing date 05.10.2006. The two documents available on the file clearly raise a finger towards the bank authorities to absolve themselves from any civil or criminal liability but the officials of the bank have acted otherwise. We, therefore, feel that by manipulating the figures in the date of issuance of the cheque from 5 to 15 is sufficient to hold the bank guilty of unfair trade practice for which the bank authorities are responsible.
Hence, this appeal is accepted and by setting aside the impugned order the complaint filed by the complainants is accepted with a direction to the respondents-opposite parties to pay a compensation of rupees one lac to the complainant alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization. The opposite parties-Bank would first make the payment of the awarded amount to the complainant and thereafter would hold a discrete inquiry into the matter at their own end and before holding the erring officials guilty, an opportunity must be given to him/them by issuing show-cause notice so that the delinquent/delinquents may not be punished unheard.
Announced: Justice R.S. Madan 02.02.2012 President B.M. Bedi Judicial Member