Haryana

Kurukshetra

39/2017

Davinder Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Axis bank - Opp.Party(s)

Mohit Tandon

23 Jan 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

                                                     Complaint Case No.39 of 2017.

                                                     Date of institution: 15.02.2017.

                                                     Date of decision:23.01.2019.

Devinder Kumar S/o Sh. Gurubachan Lal, R/o H.No.135/10, near SKIET College, Silver City Thanesar, Kurukshetra, Mobile No.9996098337.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

Axis Bank Limited through its Branch Manager Kanipla Branch, Branch Code 2238, Village Kanipla, Distt. Kurukshetra.

….Respondent.

Before:      Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.

                Ms. Neelam, Member.

                Sh. Sunil Mohan Trikha, Member.

Present:     Sh. Mohit Tandon, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                Sh. Rohtash Jangam, Advocate for the OP.

               

ORDER

                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Devinder Kumar against Axis Bank, the opposite party.

2.            Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant is saving account holder in the branch of Op vide account No.915010016238745.  It is alleged that the complainant visited the branch of Op in order to get a clearance of cheque issued in the name of complainant bearing No.303218 dt. 25.10.2016 drawn on Corporation Bank, Saraswati Vihar, New Delhi by C.P.Anand for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- and for the same transaction in respect to the cheque, the officials of the branch have made entry in the passbook of the complainant on 17.12.2016 by mentioning the cheque amount as-well-as the cheque number and it was further mentioned in the passbook that the same has been rejected on clearing on 17.12.2016.  It is further alleged that the complainant visited in the branch several times after 17.12.2016 in order to collect the cheque which was dishonoured but due to carelessness of the branch and mistake, the branch reported the complainant that the cheque has been lost.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of Ops and prayed for acceptance of complaint with the direction to Op to pay Rs.2,50,000/- i.e. the cheque amount alongwith interest and further to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony as-well-as Rs.22,000/- as litigation charges. 

3.            Upon notice, the OP appeared before this Forum and contested the complaint by filing their reply raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum.  The true facts are that the branch of Op is rural branch and the same is not member of clearing house.  In the case of complainant also, the answering Op forwarded the cheque to their Kurukshetra Branch for clearance but the same was rejected/dishonoured on account of “Insufficient funds” in the account of drawer.  The intimation with respect to the fate of cheque was duly intimated to the complainant on 17.12.2016.  Upon receiving the cheque from another branch, the answering Op immediately informed the complainant that he can collect the same from the office of Op but till that period the complainant started threatening the answering Op to implicate him in litigation.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of Op.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.             The complainant tendered into evidence documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

5.           On the other hand, the Op tendered into evidence affidavit, Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 & Ex.R2 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

6.             We have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.

7.             Learned counsel for the complainant contended that on 16.12.2016, the complainant has presented a cheque bearing No.303218 dt. 25.10.2016 for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-.  The complainant has visited the branch several times in order to collect the cheque which was dishonoured.  But due to carelessness of branch and mistake, the cheque of complainant has been lost by the Op.  Then he filed a complaint before this Forum on 15.02.2017.  After filing of this complaint, the Op has sent a cheque Ex.C6, Ex.C7 and memo Ex.C8 by registered post which shows the deficiency in service on the part of Op.  This is gross negligence on the part of Op by not giving the cheque and memo of dishonour of cheque in time.  The counsel of complainant placed reliance upon the case law cited in 2005(2) CPC page 466 titled as Senior Manager Canara Bank Vs. Sh. Anashwar Chopra (State Commission, Haryana) and also placed copies of order dt. 26.11.2007 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court bearing Civil Appeal No.5402 of 2007 titled as Jasbinder Singh Vs. OBC and order dt. 29.09.2004 passed by Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana bearing first appeal No.1403 of 2000 titled as Jasbinder Singh Vs. OBC.  

8.             Learned counsel for the Op contended that the Op has a rural branch.  After presentation of cheque before the Op on 16.12.2016, the Op has sent this cheque for clearance in the main branch.  Then they received back this cheque and memo.  The Op requested the complainant to take the cheque and memo from the bank but the complainant has refused to take the cheque and memo from the bank.  After that the Op has sent this cheque and memo by registered post to the complainant.  The counsel of Op further contended that there is no deficiency in service on the part of Op.  There is no loss to the complainant.  The complainant can file a suit for recovery by this cheque and memo.

9.             On perusal of record, it is clear that the Op has sent the cheque, Ex.C6, Ex.C7 and memo, Ex.C8 to the complainant after filing of this complaint.  So, the Op is deficient while rendering services to the complainant.  In view of ratio laid down in the authorities submitted by the counsel of complainant, the ends of justice will be met if we direct the Op to pay the amount of Rs.2,50,000/- (cheque amount) to the complainant. 

10.            Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the Op to pay Rs.2,50,000/- as cheque amount to the complainant and further to pay Rs.10,000/- as lump sum compensation on account of harassment, mental agony including the litigation charges.  Let the order be complied with within 30 days from the date of preparation of copy of this order, failing which, the complainant shall be entitled interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of order till its realization.  A copy of said order be supplied to the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.           

Announced in open court:

Dt.:23.01.2019.  

                                                                        (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                        President.

 

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Neelam)       

Member                             Member.