State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Rupinder Kaur vs Pnb on 8 May, 2015
First ADDITIONAL BENCH
PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION,
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. 82 of 2011
Date of institution: 18.01.2011
Date of Decision: 08.05.2015
Rupinder Kaur d/o S.Gurbax Singh r/o House No.46, Sewak Colony,
Patiala.
.....Appellant/Complainant
Versus
1. Punjab National Bank, Lela Bhawan Branch, Patiala through its
Manager.
2. Punjab National Bank, Zonal Office at Feroze Gandhi Market,
Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana through its Zonal Manager.
.....Respondents/Opposite Parties
First Appeal against order dated
01.11.2010 passed by the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Patiala.
Before:-
Sh. J.S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member
Sh. Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member
Sh. Harcharan Singh Guram, Member
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. R.K. Dhiman, Advocate
For the respondent : Sh. H.S. Bhatia, Advocate
Harcharan Singh Guram, Member
ORDER
This appeal has been preferred by appellant (hereinafter referred to as the complainant in the complaint) against the respondents of this appeal (the Ops in the complaint) assailing order dated 01.11.2010 passed by the District F.A. No. 82 of 2011 2 Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Patiala (in short the 'District Forum') in C.C. No. 10/237 dated 31.03.2010, vide which, the complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed on the ground that no cheque book containing cheques No.559106-559124 was ever issued to the complainant, rather cheque book containing cheque No.559101-559125 was issued to one Jagjit Singh Sodhi having Saving bank account No.7379 (new account No.0100073892), so the cheques bearing No.559120, 559121 and 559122 were rightly dishonoured by the OPs as the said cheques were never issued from the cheque book of the complainant, but pertaining to the account No.7379. As such the complainant had failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the OP and hence the complaint was dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant Rupinder Kaur was having her saving bank account with OP No.1 vide account No.148200-0100093185. She had got financed a car from Kotak Mahindra financed company in 2005 and was duly issued two cheques books, vide cheques series No.582711-582750 and from 559106-559124. It is further pleaded that during the first four years, all cheques were honoured without any default in her car loan account, but in the 5th year the cheques issued by her in favour of the Kotak Mahindra Finance Company was dis-honoured by OP No.1 on 01.08.2009. She had withdrawn the amount from ATM in order to clear cheque amount and deposited that amount in Kotak Mahindra Financed on 14.10.2009 to avoid the consequence. She visited the OPs bank and apprised the Branch Manager that cheque issued by her was dishonoured by them by stating that account of the complainant was closed. They gave an assurance that the next cheque of complainant would be honoured, as and when it was presented in the bank. As per their assurance, the installment cheque for the month of September 2009 was duly honoured by the bank. But F.A. No. 82 of 2011 3 three cheques dated 01.10.2009, 01.11.2009 and 01.12.2009 pertaining to installments of her car loan were again dishonoured by the OP recording remarks "Account Closed" and "No such Account". It was submitted that the complainant was duly having her account with OP bank and the said account was having sufficient balance in her account to pass the said cheques issued by her in favour of the Kotak Mahindra Bank in her account. While getting no suitable reply from the OPs, she issued a legal notice dated 24.12.2009 to OPs about this matter. It is further averred in the complaint that the Kotak Mahindra Finance Company had demanded a sum of Rs. 5226.89 as over due interest on account of dishonoured cheques of complainant due to negligence on the part of the OP No.1, who had ruined her good track record and thus she was also deprived by their negligent act of getting the enhanced loan facility from the said finance company. She visited the office of the OP No.1 on 26.03.2010 on account of settlement of payment of the said amount, as demanded by the Kotak Mahindra Financed Company but the employees of OP No.1 misbehaved with her and the act of dishonouring her cheques by the OP No.1 resulted in financial loss to her. On failure to get any relief from the OPs, she filed the consumer complaint in the District Forum on 31.03.2010 against the OP.
3. Upon receipt of notice, OP No.1 & 2 filed their joint reply and took preliminary objections that the present complaint in the present forum is not maintainable. The complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and she had misrepresented the facts and suppressed material facts from the District Forum and no relief could be granted to her by the District Forum. They further submitted that the complaint was not having any cause of action to file her complaint against them. They further alleged that the District Forum could not adjudicate the present complaint as the matter in controversy relates to complex F.A. No. 82 of 2011 4 matter which can be resolved by the Civil Court. The complainant is bad for non joinder of necessary parties i.e. Kotak Mahindra Financed company. On merits, the OPs submitted that the complainant was not a consumer, as defined under the Consumer Protection Act. They admitted that the complainant was having saving account No. 148200-0100093185 with them, but the said account was opened subject to the terms and conditions and the rules of the bank so mentioned in the account opening form. It was admitted that the cheque book containing cheque No. 582711 to 582750 was issued to the complainant and they denied this fact that the cheque book containing cheque No. 559106 to 559124 was issued to the complainant rather the cheque book containing cheques No. 559101 to 559125 was issued to one old account No. 7379 standing in the name of Jagjit Singh Sodhi on 17.02.2003. However, the said account stands closed with effect from 17.02.2005.Thus, the alleged cheque book containing No.559106 to 559124 was never issued to the complainant. They denied that any cheque issued in the saving bank account No.148200- 0100093185 was ever dishonoured by them with remarks "account closed". It was also admitted that the account No. 148200-0100093185 was still operative. It was denied by them that no financial help was ever disallowed to the complainant by the Kotak Mahindra Financed Company and the said company did not stop any enhancement of the facility as sought by the complainant from the said finance company. They also denied that any track record of the complainant was ever disturbed by the OP No.1. The contents of the complaint were alleged to be false and concocted and OPs did not commit any deficiency in service, as alleged in the complaint. They further submitted that the present complaint was filed by the complainant being false and frivolous and vexatious and OPs have been unnecessarily into the present litigation by the complainant F.A. No. 82 of 2011 5 and the said complaint was liable be dismissed with special costs amounting to Rs. 20,000/-
4. The complainant tendered in evidence by submitting car finance statement of Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd. Ex.C-1, copy of the Kotak Mahindra Finance letter dated 24.07.2006 written to the complainant Ex.C-2, copy of the agency payment receipt of Kotak Mahindra Prime Limited dated 28.08.2009 Ex.C-3, copy of cheque No. 559120 drawn in favour of Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd dated 1.10.2009 drawn on Punjab National Bank OP No.1 for a sum of Rs. 5050/- send by complainant Ex.C-4, photocopy of the cheque No. 559121 dated 01.11.2009 Ex.C-5, photocopy of the cheque No. 559122 in favour of Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd dated 01.12.2009 along with written memo of Punjab National Bank in favour of ICICI Ex.C-6, copy of the memo issued by Punjab National Bank to ICICI Bank stating reasons for return dated 05.11. Ex.C-7, copy of written memo of Punjab National Bank Ex.C-8, copy of agency payment receipt dated 14.10.2009 of Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd. Ex.C-9, copy of the agency payment receipt by Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd. 12.11.2009 Ex.C-10, copy of agency payment receipts of Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd. 14.12.2009 Ex.C-11, copy of the legal notice dated 24.12.2009 issued to the Manager Punjab National Bank Ex.C-12 along with postal receipts Ex.C-13, copy of the Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd letter dated 25.03.2010 to complainant Ex.C-14, copy of the affidavit of the complainant dated 19.07.2010 Ex.C-15 and closed her evidence. OPs tendered affidavit of Subhash Chander Manger Punjab National Bank branch Office Phatak No.22, dated 09.08.2010 Ex.R-1 copy of the security form register pertaining to issuance of current saving fund/cheque books Ex.R-2, photocopy of the specimen signatures of SB account No.7379 Ex.R-3, photocopy of the cheque No.599104 dated 17.02.2005 passed by the bank Ex.R-4, photocopy of F.A. No. 82 of 2011 6 the back side of the cheque No.559104 Ex.R-5, copy of the account statement of Mr. Jagjit Singh new account No.1482000100073792 Ex.R-6 and closed their evidence. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum dismissed the complaint of the complainant by virtue of order dated 01.11.2010, under challenge in this appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the complaint now appellant has filed the present appeal against the same.
5. We have heard the arguments of the counsel of the OPs and also perused the record of the District Forum, which was called at the stage of admission. During the course of the arguments, the counsel of the complainant argued that from the perusal of the bank account statement of the complainant, it is apparent that the cheques which were denied by the OP bank of not having issued by them were duly passed in her account. As such the impugned order of District Forum was not passed by going through the record of pass book entries of her account statement issued by the OP bank and order merits to be set aside. We have examined the statement of account as placed on record pertaining to Account No. 1482000100093185 issued by Punjab National Bank having its branch office at 22 No. Phatak, Patiala in the name of Mrs. Rupinder Kaur r/o Sector-46 Patiala.
6. On perusal of the said statement, it is observed by us that cheque No. 559106 issued in favour of Kotak Mahindra Finance Company for a sum of Rs.5050/- was duly passed by the bank in her account on 06.08.2008. Similarly, cheque No. 559107 in favour of Kotak Mahindra Finance Company for a sum of Rs. 5050/- was paid by the OP bank on 30.09.2008; cheque No. 559108 paid on 08.10.2008, cheque No. 559109 in favour of Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd was passed on 03.11.2008. Cheque No. 559110 issued in favour of Kotak Mahindra Finance Company was passed by the OP bank on 02.12.2008. Cheque No. F.A. No. 82 of 2011 7 559112 in favour of Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd for a sum of Rs. 5050/- was passed on 03.02.2009, cheque No. 559113 in favour of Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd was passed on 03.03.2009, cheque No. 559114 in favour of Kotak Mahindra was passed on 04.04.2009, cheque No. 559115 in favour of Kotak Mahindra for Rs. 5050/- was paid by OP bank from her account on 12.05.2009 cheque No. 559116 in favour of Kotak Mahindra for Rs. 5050/- was passed on 03.06.2009 cheque No. 559117 issued in favour of Kotak Mahindra for a sum of Rs. 5050/- was passed in her account on 03.07.2009, cheque No. 559119 in favour of Kotak Mahindra for a sum of Rs. 5050/- was passed by the OP bank on 02.09.2009 from her account similarly cheque No. 559123 in favour of Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd. for a sum of Rs. 5050/- was passed on 04.01.2010 and cheque No. 559124 issued in favour of Kotak Mahindra for a sum of Rs.5050/- was passed in her account on 02.02.2010.
7. From the perusal of the above statement, it is observed by us that OP bank had wrongfully dishonoured the cheque issued by the complainant in favour of Kotak Mahindra as per Ex-C/4 to Ex-C/7 by stating the reasons that the account has been closed. From the perusal of the above statements, we are of the opinion that OP bank had given a wrong affidavit by denying the averment of the complainant that any cheque book was issued to the complainant by way of issuing the said cheques in her name. We fail to understand as to how these cheques which were not issued to the complainant were passed by the OPs in her account. From the above, it is quite clear that the stand taken by the OP bank in the District Forum was a wrong stand and from the perusal of Ex-C/3, Ex-C/9, Ex-C10 and Ex-C/11, it is evident that the complainant had deposited the amount of Rs. 5050/- by way of cash in her loan account, wherein it was stated in Ex-C/3 received this amount for August, 2009 similarly Ex-C/9 is corresponding payment F.A. No. 82 of 2011 8 for dishonouring of the cheque vide Ex-C/4 by OPs and Ex-C/10 is the corresponding payment deposited with Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd. by the complainant in lieu of dishonouring of her cheques vide Ex-C/5 and Ex-C/11 dated 14.12.2009 would be a corresponding payment for Ex-C/6 dated 01.12.2009. Ex-C/14 is letter received by the complainant from Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd. where in amount of Rs. 5,226/- was shown as overdue interest receivable. As per account statement Ex-C/1 of the Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd. Company, of car finance statement of account all the cheques issued by the complainant in their favour get duly reflected drawn on Punjab National Bank duly depicting the cheques given by the complainant for repayment for her car financed in their favour. There is no substance to disbelieve the contentions of the complainant in her complaint against the OPs. In view of the above observations, the appeal filed by the complainant is allowed. The order of the District Forum is set aside.
8. The OPs are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as compensation for causing harassment mental agony along with Rs. 10,000/- litigation costs in favour of complainant by dishonouring her cheques without any reasons and they did not properly record issuance of cheque books issued to the complainant in their record. The OPs are directed to pay the directed amount to the complaint after 45 days from the receipt of this order. Failure to pay the said amount to the complainant within the said period will attract interests @ 9% from the date of order till the date of actual payment.
9. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 28.04.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties as per rules. F.A. No. 82 of 2011 9
10. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(J.S. Klar) Presiding Judicial Member (V.K. Gupta) Member (H.S. Guram) May 8 , 2015 Member Surinder