BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAPURTHALA. Complaint No. 25 of 2020 Date of Instt. 02.03.2020 Date of Decision:04.10.2021 Tarwinderjit Singh son of Late S. Ripduman Singh resident of House No. B-8/26, Lahori Gate, Kapurthala. .....Complainant Versus Yes Bank, Branch Jalandhar Road, Kapurthala through its Manager. ......Opposite party Complaint under Consumer Protection Act Quorum: Before: Sh. Lalit Pathak (President) Mrs.Jyotsna (Member) Present: Complainant in person. Sh. Sandeep Singh, Adv. Counsel for the OP Order Sh. Lalit Pathak (President)
1. The complainant has preferred this complaint under Consumer Protection Act stating therein that he is having Saving Bank Account No. 004290100000614 with the OP bank. The complainant is having family relation with one Harmanpreet Singh who was in need of money in the year 2018 and requested for financial help. In order to help, complainant issued cheque No. 000018 dated 25/5/2018 for a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- from his said account. The cheque was presented by Harmanpreet Singh in his banker HDFC Bank on 25/5/2018 but the OP bank dishonored the cheque of complainant without any reason and returned the cheque of the complainant unpaid with the remarks Payment Stopped by Drawer. He has further submitted that complainant never issued any instructions to his banker to stop the payment against any cheque. The OP had wrongly and without any reason dishonored of the cheque of the complainant. The said act of the OP bank caused great mental tension and harassment to the complainant as dishonor of the cheque had given a black spot on the image and reputation of the complainant in the eyes of Harmanpreet Singh and due to said act, Harmanpreet Singh got annoyed with the complainant and made impression that complainant had intentionally stopped the payment and complainant do not want to help in hard time. This also harmed the relations between complainant and Harmanpreet Singh. After having the knowledge of dishonor of the cheque, the complainant approached Harmanpreet Singh got his bank details in order to transfer the said amount which was provided after a month and complainant transferred Rs. 3,00,000/- in shape of RTGS from the OP bank. The complainant also moved an application dated 28/5/2018 for providing information regarding instructions of stop payment of any cheque from the date of opening of account till date. The OP bank duly replied and issued a letter mentioning that there was no instruction given by you from account opening to till date for stop payment of cheque which shows the OP bank wrongly and intentionally dishonored the cheque as the complainant had earlier filed complaint before Consumer Forum and in order to pressurize the complainant to withdraw the said complaint. The said cheque was intentionally dishonored. Further stated that this is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of the OP bank and they failed to provide the best service to the complainant and also alleged malpractice on the part of the OP and complainant had prayed for Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation on account of mental and physical harassment, agony and Rs. 1,00,000/- for damaging the relationship between complainant and Harmanpreet Singh and Rs. 50,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. Notice of the complaint was served to the OP who put in appearance and filed their written reply. The OP had taken preliminary objections that there is no deficiency in service as defined under the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant has mislead in this Commission and in order to grab unlawful amount by way of compensation by taking unlawful benefit of provisions of law. The complaint is incomplete without any documentary proof to substantiate the alleged claims mentioned against the OP. The complainant had not submitted either the original returned cheque or memo which are mandatory to establish the stand and allegation of complaint. Further stated that complaint is bad for non-joinder of the necessary parties and there is no cause of action. The complainant is making baseless inconclusive allegations against the OP. HDFC Bank and Harmanpreet Singh are not parties in the complaint. There is misinterpretation of the facts. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP nor any malpractice as alleged in the complaint. The matter is not a consumer dispute since the issue raised by the complainant in the present complaint is concocted and result of an afterthought since the alleged issues has been raised after more than a year and half of the date of actual alleged incident of bouncing of cheque. The complainant had never written any letter, complaint or notice to the OP in respect of the issues raised by him in the present complaint. The OP prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs being without merits.
3. The complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of OP reiterating the allegations made in the complaint and controverting those made in the written statement.
4. To prove his case, complainant submitted his affidavit Ex.CA alongwith documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C18.
5. On the other hand, OP examined Sh. Deepak Rana, Branch Service Leader, Yes Bank Limited who submitted his affidavit Ex. DA.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the written submissions made by learned counsel for the complainant.
7. Ex. C7 is a letter written by OP in response to the communication initiated by the complainant vide its letter dated 28/5/2018 Ex. C6. The letter Ex. C7 issued by the OP reflects that OP had replied that there was no instructions given by the complainant from account opening to till date for stop payment of cheque and the account statement Ex. C14 of Harmanpreet Singh reflecting the entries dated 25/5/2018 and 21/6/2018 would show that payment was stopped by the drawer for Rs. 3,00,000/- and further entry regarding RTGS by complainant in favour of Harmanpreet Singh of Rs. 3,00,000/-. The root controversy involved in the present case is with regard to dishonoring of cheque by the OP by issuing Memo payment stopped by drawer, which in the present complaint, the complainant had never given such instructions and further the OP had admitted there was no such instructions given by the complainant till date. The OP could not give any cogent and valid reason in order to show their genuineness for dishonoring the cheque with remarks payment stopped by drawer.
8. As a result of the above observation, we are of the view that the OP bank is negligent while dishonoring the cheque with the remarks payment stopped by drawer as there was no instructions from the complainant to do so. The said act of the bank is negligent and we partly allow this complaint and OP is directed to pay Rs.5,000/- compensation on account of causing mental torture and agony and litigation expenses. Compliance of the order be made within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order failing which complainant would be entitled to the interest @8% on the awarded amount from the date of filing of complaint i.e. 2/3/2020 till realization. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to Covid 19. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room. Dated Jyotsna Lalit Pathak 04/10/2021 Member President