Complainant Tajinder Pal Singh has filed the present complaint against the opposite parties U/S 35 of the Consumer Protection Act (for short, C.P.Act.) seeking necessary directions to the opposite parties to pay a damages to tune of Rs.17,00,000/- on account of loss suffered by him. Opposite parties be further directed to pay Rs.5,00,000/-  as compensation on account of causing mental agony, act/breach on the part of the opposite parties alongwith Rs.12,000/- as litigation expenses, in the interest of justice.

2.       The case of the complainant in brief is that he is account holder with the bank of opposite party no.1. He holds a joint saving account alongwith his wife namely Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur. His account number is 2917000107261349. He presented one cheque bearing no.654260 dated 13.11.2020 amounting to Rs.17,00,000/-drawn on Yes Bank Pathankot issued by Sh.Simranjit Singh son of Sh.Balbir Singh in his favour from his account bearing no.008692000004364. The abovesaid cheque was dishonored by the opposite party no.1 vide return Memo dated 31.12.2020 with the remarks "Payment stopped by Drawer". He approached the opposite party no.1 for collection of abovesaid cheque bearing No.654260 but on 01.01.2021, he came to know from the official of the opposite party no.1 that the cheque in question has already been handed over to his father namely Sh.Kulwant Singh alongwith its return memo. He apprised the official of the bank that as per bank norms the opposite party no.1 has no right/authority to handover the cheque in question to anybody else except the account holder/drawee i.e. the complainant who hold joint account in the bank of opposite party no.1. Even he never gave any authority or consent to handover the said cheque to anybody including his father. The opposite party no.1 has handed over the cheque in question to his father without his consent and knowledge. Consequently, his father lost/misplaced the abovesaid cheque bearing no.654260 alongwith its memo which has not been traceable till today. He has next pleaded that because of breach of banking rules and protocols on the part of opposite parties due to which he has suffered great financial loss of Rs.17,00,000/-. The act of opposite party no.1 is sheer negligence and also amounts to criminal breach of trust and deficiency in services and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. A legal notice dated 19.01.2021 was issued to the opposite parties no.1 and 2 but they did not reply to the said legal notice. Hence this complaint.

 3.          Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite parties who appeared through their counsel and filed their written reply taking the preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable and the complaint has been filed by the complainant on the basis of wrong and erroneous facts. On merits, it was submitted that the complainant has presented the said cheque and after getting the memo on 19.12.2020 from YES Bank, the same was returned to the complainant through his father Kulwant Singh on 31.12.2020. Father of the complainant used to visit the branch of opposite party oftenly and he used to operate the account maximum time. Moreover with the consent of the complainant and his wife through mobile phone the cheque in question alongwith Memo was handed over to his father Kulwant Singh. It was next submitted that with the consent of the complainant and his wife the mobile number of his father Kulwant Singh has been entered in the said account of the complainant. The recordings and photographs are attachéd. Moreover father of the complainant and wife of the complainant have also given affidavits to the fact that Kulwant Singh has collected the cheque alongwith Memo from the bank with their consent. The complaint has been filed by the complainant only to harass the employees of the opposite party. Moreover whenever the cheque was dishonoured, charges are deducted from the account of party presenting the same and message to this fact is delivered to the said person through mobile and in this case also the message was delivered to the complainant regarding the said charges on 19.12.2020 but he did not come to the branch till 31.12.2020 personally and on 31.12.2020 he sent his father Kulwant Singh for collection of cheque alongwith Memo.   All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.   

4.       Alongwith the complaint, complainant has filed his own affidavit Ex.CW-1/A alongwith other documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-5.

5.      Alongwith the written statement ld.counsel for the opposite parties filed affidavit of Sh.Ravinder Kumar, Manager of P.N.B. Ex.OP-1 alongwith other documents Ex.OP-2 to Ex.OP-8.

6.         Rejoinder filed by the complainant.

7.         Written arguments have not been filed by the parties.

8.          We have carefully gone through the pleadings of counsel for the parties; oral arguments advanced by their respective counsels and have also appreciated the evidence produced on record with the valuable assistance of the learned counsels for the parties for the purposes of adjudication of the present complaint.

9.      As detailed above, the complainant alleged in the complaint that the memo of dishonored cheque has not been delivered to him by opposite party no.1 but it has been handed over to his father, thereby claimed the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. It is further alleged that he could not follow up the matter as the said memo has been misplaced by his father and not handed over to him.

10.       Opposite parties in their written statement admitted the fact of delivering the said memo to the father of the complainant but point out that it has been handed over with the consent of the consumer on telephone.

11.     As per para no.3 and 4 of the complaint, the said memo of the bank was dated 31.12.2020 and the complainant got to know about this on 1.1.2021 (next day) from the official of the bank.

12.    The complainant has not placed on record evidence in rebuttal to claim of the opposite parties, so proper verification of such evidence is required to adjudicate the case.

13.   In view of the above, at the outset without going on the merit of the case, we find that the complaint cannot be decided in summary manner and requires to be decided after examination of detailed and elaborated evidence.

14.    Hence without prejudice to the right of the complainant to take resort to the remedy by way of Civil Suit before the appropriate Court of Law, the complaint is hereby disposed off with no order as to costs.

15.        The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases, vacancies in the office and due to pandemic of Covid-19.

16.    Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned.                                                                                                                                                         

            (Naveen Puri)

                                                                            President   

Announced:                                                   (B.S.Matharu)

January 06, 2023                                                  Member

*MK*