Back
UNION TERRITORY STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHANDIGARH
SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT & MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER
PUNJAB AND SIND BANK - Appellant
Versus
AYUSH ENTERPRISES - Respondent
First Appeal No. 295 of 2014
Decided On : 30-10-2014
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Dipinder Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Aman Priye Jain, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the liability of the bank for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice in handling deposited cheques, as well as the importance of proper documentation and handling of cheques by the bank.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act - Banking Services - Section 12 - Section 13(4) - The court discussed the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by the bank in not properly handling a deposited cheque, leading to financial loss for the complainant. The court also highlighted the need for proper handling and documentation of cheques by the bank, and the liability of the bank in such cases.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant deposited a cheque in the bank for clearance, but the amount was not credited to the account. The bank claimed that the cheque was returned at the complainant's request due to insufficient funds, while the complainant alleged that the cheque was handed over to an unauthorized person who forged it. The complainant filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking directions for payment and compensation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the bank was deficient in handling the cheque and indulged in unfair trade practice, leading to financial loss for the complainant. The court also noted that the bank failed to produce convincing evidence that the cheque was returned to the complainant's representative, and the handling of the cheque was not in accordance with banking procedures and norms.
Issues: The issues revolved around the handling of the deposited cheque by the bank, the alleged unauthorized handling and forgery, and the liability of the bank for the financial loss suffered by the complainant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the bank's handling of the cheque was deficient and amounted to unfair trade practice, leading to financial loss for the complainant. The court also emphasized the need for proper documentation and handling of cheques by the bank, and the liability of the bank in such cases.
Final Decision: The court partly accepted the appeal, directing the bank to pay the complainant for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, as awarded by the District Forum. The court also set aside certain directions given by the District Forum and modified the order accordingly.
ORDER :
MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 24.7.2014 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:
“10. In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the opposite party is found deficient in giving proper service to the complainant and having indulged in unfair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the opposite party, and the same is allowed, qua it. The opposite party is directed to:
(a) To pay savings interest on the amount of Rs. 4,28,334, from the date it was presented to it for clearance i.e. 4.9.2013, till this amount is recovered by the Investigating Agencies;
(b) To pay Rs. 20,000 to the Complainant on account of deficiency in service, unfair trade practice;
(c) To pay Rs. 10,000 as cost of litigation.
11. The above said order shall be complied within 45 days of its receipt by the opposite party; thereafter, opposite party shall be liable for an interest @18% per annum on the amount mentioned in sub-para [b] of Para 10 above from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, apart from payment of interest as mentioned in sub-para [a] of para 10 above and cost of litigation of Rs. 10,000.”
2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant, who was maintaining a CAOD A/c No. 04151300002388 in Punjab & Sind Bank, deposited Cheque bearing No. 743065 dated 2.9.2013 of Rs. 4,28,334 issued by M/s. Anmol Watches & Electronic Pvt. Ltd., on 4.9.2013, for clearance. It was stated that when after 4 days, the aforesaid amount was not credited to the account of the complainant, it verified from the opposite party, upon which, it was intimated that one of its representatives took back the cheque. It was further stated that an authorized representative of the complainant immediately met the Manager of the opposite party, who showed his inability to provide any document, vide which the complainant had authorized any person to take back the cheque. It was further stated that the complainant, however, managed to take copy of the clearing slip, as registered in the register of the opposite party, wherein the daily record of cheques submitted for clearance was maintained (Annexure C-1). It was further stated that the complainant contacted the drawer of the cheque – M/s Anmol Watches & Electronic Pvt. Ltd., to verify the status of the same (cheque) and it was learnt that the said cheque was received from Canara Bank, Ludhiana (the presenting Bank) and the amount was credited on 6.9.2013 to the account of Mr. Chander Mohan Arora, who according to the complainant, had opened the said account on the basis of forged documents.
3. It was further stated that the matter was, accordingly, reported to the Police vide DDR No. 11 dated 12.9.2013. It was further stated that the drawer of the cheque vide letter dated 17.9.2013 also certified that the cheque was issued to the complainant. It was further stated that thereafter, a complaint was also sent to the Head Office of the opposite party at Delhi on 17.9.2013 for refund of the amount (Annexure C-4), but no action was taken, under the guise of non-receipt of copy of the cheque. It was further stated that the opposite party, instead of rectifying its mistake, further continued to harass the complainant by charging interest on the amount of over credit taken by it, without deducting the amount of cheque, which was required to be credited to its account, thereby penalizing it for no fault of it. It was further stated that eventually, a legal notice dated 6.11.2013 was sent to the opposite party, which was replied to by it vide letter dated 18.11.2013 just to escape its liability.
4. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the opposite party amounted to deficiency, in rendering
