Order by:

Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President

1.       The complainant  has filed the instant complaint under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019  on the allegations that the complainanthas to get certain amount from  one Amit Khosla and to discharge, his liability said Amit Khosla issued a cheque bearing No. 000069 for Rs.5 lakhs drawn by HDFC Bank, Branch Hariana, District Hoshiarpur in favour of complainant and the complainant presented the said cheque  with Opposite Party on 14.02.2020 for clearing, but the complainant stunned to note that the Opposite Party had returned the said cheque through post on 11.05.2020 to the complainant without assigning any reason. As such, the complainant has suffered huge loss as he has been deprived of the use of said huge amount. Thereafter, the complainant made so many request to the Opposite Party to make good the loss of the complainant, but the Opposite Party did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant.     In this way, said conduct of the Opposite Party clearly amounts to deficiency in service and as such, the Complainant left with no other alternative but to file the present complaint.  Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.

a)       Opposite Party may be directed to pay a sum of Rs.1 lakh as compensation and damages on account of mental tension and unnecessary harassment for keeping the cheque in question  or any other relief to which this District Consumer Commission may deem fit be also granted.

2.       Opposite Party  appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing  the written version  on the ground inter alia that the complaint is not maintainable; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties and that the complaint is absolutely false and frivolous. It is submitted that the Complainant has no locus standi to file this complaint and moreover, the complainant has not come to this District Consumer Commission, Moga with clean hands, and rather concealed the true and hard facts from this Hon’ble Court. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering Opposite Party as at the time of deposit of the cheque in dispute, it was informed to the Complainant that the cheque is out stationed cheque and the same has to be sent through registered post for its presentation for the clearing with the concerned bank. The cheque in question is of HDFC Bank Limited Hoshiarpur whereas the cheque was presented at AXIS Bank Dhurkot Ransih Branch. There is no direct clearing of the HDFC Bank Limited Dhurkot Ransih Branch, Tehsil: Nihal Singh Wala. At the time of presentation of the cheque, it was informed to the Complainant that it will take time for its clearing and it was also informed to the Complainant that the cheque will be sent through AXIS Bank Limited, Moga Clearing Hub of the answering Opposite Party bank. Keeping in view all the facts, the cheque was deposited  by the Complainant and the said cheque was forwarded on 24.04.2020 and the same was returned by their banker unpaid and the same was  sent to the Complainant. Moreover, there is no fault  lies  on the part of the answering Opposite Party. The cheque was presented to HDFC Bank Limited Hoshiarpur and the same has been returned by said bank unpaid. There is no delay on the part of the answering Opposite Party as alleged. The reason for the return of the cheque is not supposed to be disclosed by the answering Opposite Party as the cheque is not related to the answering Opposite Party. So, the answering Opposite Party is not liable to pay any damages as alleged in this para and there is no concealment on the part of the answering Opposite Party, rather the Complainant has filed this false complaint which caused mental tension and torture to the answering Opposite Party. So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering Opposite Party.

3.       In order to  prove  his  case, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1  alongwith copies of documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C7, another affidavit Ex.C8 and copy of document Ex.C9  and closed his evidence.

4.       On the other hand,  to rebut the evidence of the complainant,  Opposite Party tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Maninder Singh Branch Head Ex.R1 alognwith copies of bank register Ex.R2, affidavit of Sh.Ajay Goyal Ex.R2 alongwith copies of documents Ex.R4 gnad Ex.R5 and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Party.

5.       We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and  gone through the documents placed  on record.

6.       During the course of arguments, both the ld.counsel for the Complainant as well as Opposite Party have mainly reiterated the facts as narrated in the complaint as well as in the written reply  respectively. We have perused the rival contentions of  the parties and also gone through the record on file. The main contention of the complainant is that due to the negligent and irresponsible acts and conduct of the Opposite Party,  he suffered great mental tension and harassment besides economic loss because by keeping the cheque in question with them, the Opposite Party returned the same without any explanation. On the other hand, ld.cousnel for the Opposite Party has repelled the aforesaid contention of the complainant on the ground that cheque in question is ‘out stationed cheque’ and the same has to be sent through registered post for its presentation for the clearing with the concerned bank. The cheque in question is of HDFC Bank Limited Hoshiarpur whereas the cheque was presented at AXIS Bank Dhurkot Ransih Branch. There is no direct clearing of the HDFC Bank Limited Dhurkot Ransih Branch, Tehsil: Nihal Singh Wala. At the time of presentation of the cheque, it was informed to the Complainant that it will take time for its clearing and it was also informed to the Complainant that the cheque will be sent through AXIS Bank Limited, Moga Clearing Hub of the answering Opposite Party bank. Keeping in view all the facts, the cheque was deposited  by the Complainant and the said cheque was forwarded on 24.04.2020 and the same was returned by their banker unpaid and the same was  sent to the Complainant. Moreover, there is no fault  lies  on the part of the answering Opposite Party. The cheque was presented to HDFC Bank Limited Hoshiarpur and the same has been returned by said bank unpaid. There is no delay on the part of the answering Opposite Party as alleged. The reason for the return of the cheque is not supposed to be disclosed by the answering Opposite Party as the cheque is not related to the answering Opposite Party. So, the answering Opposite Party is not liable to pay any damages as alleged. During the course of arguments, this District Consumer Commission put query to the ld.counsel for the op  put query to the ld.counsel for the op   that  the Opposite Party bank has received the disputed cheque on 14.02.2020 and sent the same in clearing only on 24.04.2020  and why the cheque has been kept pending for more than 2 ½ months. Further the memo of the cheque has also not been sent to the parties and other record in respect of this cheque has not been produced.  But to this query, the ld.counsel for the Opposite Party has failed to give satisfactory reply.  Admittedly, the cheque in question was presented by the complainant for clearing on 14.02.2020, copy of the counter foil is placed on record as Ex.C6 which is duly received by Opposite Party bank duly signed and stamped. It is also not disputed that the said cheque has been returned by Opposite Party to the complainant without explaining any reason only on 24.04.2020 i.e. after about 2 ½ months, hence we are of the view that there is great lapse on the part of the Opposite Parties bank.  Due to such lapse and negligent manner on the part of the official(s) of the Opposite Party, the complainant must have suffered loss.   Moreover, the  banks must be ever vigilant and solicitious about the interests of their customers departure from such standard can cause inconvenience not only to stray individuals but widespread economic disaster. The Banks should therefore be enjoined to maintain their services efficient and above approach. In view of the above it amounts to deficiency in service for which bank is bound to compensate.  Moreover, it is a common knowledge that when an account holder draws a cheque in favour of the bank itself, it is undoubtedly for the purpose of utilizing that amount by the bank for any of the specified directions of the customer. In view of this, we found that due to the negligence on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complainant has suffered loss and there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.

7.       Attorney of the  complainant has prayed to direct the Opposite Party bank to make the amount of Rs.1 lakh as compensation  and damages on account of mental tension and unnecessary harassment for keeping the cheque in question  worth Rs.5 lakhs. Though the complainant certainly suffered loss on account of loss of cheque amount besides causing him mental tension and harassment. But we are of the view that Opposite Party- Bank cannot be made liable to pay entire amount of cheque. In this regard, we rely upon  judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Citibank N.A. Vs Geekay Agropack (P) Ltd., reported in SCC 2008 (15) Page 102 the Bank may be liable for damages for not returning the cheque as it amounts to deficiency in service but there cannot be any liability to pay the cheque amount. To the same effect, is a view taken by the Hon'ble National Commission in State Bank of Patiala v. Rajender Lal & Anr., reported in IV (2003) CPJ 53 (NC). The Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Manoj Khurana Vs. Rajender Banchor & Anr., reported in I (2007) CPJ 234 (NC) submitted that though there was deficiency in service on the part of the appellant / opponent-Bank it cannot be made liable to pay entire amount of cheque. However, the complainant is at liberty get recover the remaining claimed amount from the Opposite Parties by availing proper remedy before competent authority/ court  of law, if he so desires. 

8.       We are also of the view that due to non taking action on the part of the concerned official (s),  the complainant has suffered great mental tension, harassment and financial loss and he was compelled to file the present complaint for the redressal of his grievances. In this regard,  Hon'ble Apex Court in case “Lucknow Development Authority versus M.K.Gupta” 1993 CTJ 929 (SC) (CP)  has strongly criticized such arbitrariness on the part of the officers of the public authorities. In the said case, the Hon'ble Apex court has observed that:

"the authority empowered to function under a statute while exercising power discharges public duty. It has to act to observe general welfare in common good. In ordinary matters a common man, who has neither the political backing nor the financial strength to match the inaction in public oriented departments, get frustrated and it erodes the credibility in the system where it is found that exercise of discretion was malafide and the complainant is entitled to compensation for mental and physical harassment then the officer can no more claim to be under any protective cover. The court further directed the department concerned to pay the amount to the complainant from the public fund immediately, but to recover the same from those who are found responsible for such unpardonable behavior by dividing it proportionately where there are more than one functionary.”

A similar matter arose before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Dr.R.Jagan Vs. Director, Motor Vehicles Maintenance Department, 2007 CTJ 377 (CP) where a compensation of Rs.50,000/- has been awarded.  Lateron New Delhi District Consumer Forum (now Commission) has awarded compensation of Rs.30,000/- to a senior citizen as misbehaved by Postal Department counter clerk at GPO where he was made to wait for several hours for withdrawal of money from his account.

9.       In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant  and direct the Opposite Party to  make good the loss of the complainant   directing the Opposite Party to pay Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousands only) to the complainant  alongwith interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 20.11.2020 till its actual realization. The compliance of this order be made by the Opposite Party within 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the Complainant shall be at liberty to get the order enforced through the indulgence of this Commission. The Opposite Party-bank is also directed to fix the responsibility of the concerned erroring official (s) and deduct the awarded amount from the salary of the said erroring official (s) and thereafter report to this Commission within the above-mentioned stipulated period.  Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:21.07.2022.