Delhi

North East

CC/53/2022

SatyaDev Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bank Of Baroda - Opp.Party(s)

08 Jul 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

Complaint Case No. 53/22

 

 

 

In the matter of:

 

		Sh. Satyadev Sharma S/o Sh. Ram Sharan Sharma R/o J 101/11, St. No.2, 4th Pusta, Kartar Nagar, Delhi-110053		Complainant
		Versus
		The Manager, Bank of Baroda, Bhajanpura, Branch, Delhi-110053		Opposite Party
			DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                           DATE OF ORDER:		08.03.22 25.04.24 08.07.24

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Ms. Adarsh Nain, Member

 

ORDER

Ms. Adarsh Nain, Member

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against Opposite Party alleging deficiency in services.

Case of the Complainant                                                                 

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that Complainant has his account bearing no. 639502010017545 in Opposite Party bank. The Complainant had deposited two cheques bearing no. 404865 and 404866 both dated 30.09.20 of amount Rs. 1,00,000/- each, on 05.10.20 for encashment. It is alleged that Opposite Party had returned one cheque bearing no.404865 dated 30.09.20 amounting of Rs. 1,00,000/-  to the Complainant but the second cheque bearing no. 404866 dated 30.09.20 amounting of Rs. 1,00,000/- has not been returned to the Complainant by the Opposite Party till today. After many requests and visits, Opposite Party handed over the returning cheque memo to the Complainant on 11.12.20 for the cheque bearing no. 404865 stating that this is the slip of misplace cheque i.e. 404866.  On the basis of dishonoured cheque and misplaced cheque, Complainant filed complaint in the court of Sh. Puneet Pahwa, Ld. Civil Judge, North East Delhi for recovery of Rs. 2,00,000/- but recovery has been decreed only for one cheque. The Complainant received shock when he came to know from decree sheet that court was pleased to decree only one cheque and declined the decree amount of missing cheque. Complainant had also served demand notice to Opposite Party dated 29.11.21 but all in vain. The Opposite Party had not returned the said cheque 404866 till today nor paid any compensation to Complainant till today. The Complainant has prayed for Rs. 5,00,000/-(including interest) in total towards compensation.

 

 

Case of the Opposite Party

2. The Opposite Party contested the case and filed written statement. Opposite Party has contended that the Complainant had never approached the Opposite Party to receive dishonoured cheque no.404866 and the said cheque is still lying with Opposite Party. It is also submitted by the Opposite Party that as per account statement of the Complainant, the status of the said cheque was shown as unpaid, hence, the Complainant was well aware of this fact. Opposite Party has also denied specifically the allegation that after many visits, Opposite Party handed over the returning cheque memo of 404865 under the pretext that the same is also a missing slip of misplaced cheque no.404866. The Opposite Party has denied any deficiency in services and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party

3. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Party and has reiterated the assertion made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

4. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint.

 

 

Evidence of the Opposite Party

5. In order to prove its case, Opposite Party filed affidavit of Dr. Kumar Vikas, Chief Manager of Bank of Baroda Bhajanpura Branch, Delhi wherein the averments made in the written statement of Opposite Party have been supported.

Arguments & Conclusion

6. We have heard the Ld. Counsels for the parties.We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by the parties.
7. It is the case of the Complainant that on 05.10.20, the Complainant had deposited two cheques bearing no. 404865 and 404866 of amount                   Rs. 1,00,000/- each, for encashment. It is alleged that Opposite Party had returned one cheque bearing no.404865 dated 30.09.20 amounting of Rs. 1,00,000/-  to the Complainant but the second cheque bearing no. 404866 has not been returned to the Complainant by the Opposite Party till today. The allegation of the Complainant is that Opposite Party has intentionally and deliberately caused a great loss of Rs. 100,000/- to the Complainant by not returning the said cheque. On the other hand the case of the Opposite Party is that  the above mentioned two cheques were not encashed and cheque no.404865  along with cheque return memo indicating ‘insufficient funds’ was returned to the Complainant while cheque no.404866 is still lying with Opposite Party as the Complainant did not collect the same. At the same time, it is submitted by the Opposite Party that Opposite Party bank had never denied to return the said cheque to the Complainant. It is also argued by the Opposite Party bank that the Complainant was well aware of the fact the said cheque has been dishonoured as unpaid and it is the duty of the Complainant to collect the said cheque from Opposite Party.
8. The perusal of the file including the pleadings of the parties shows that the Complainant has filed copy of cheque and memo which clearly shows that the said memo pertained to the different cheque. The complaint has failed to show that he placed the demand for the said cheque and despite his demand, same was not returned. The Complainant has simply denied the abovenoted contention of the Opposite Party and failed to produce any documents in support. The Opposite Party has also contended that it is the duty of the Complainant to collect the said cheque from Opposite Party and the Complainant has denied to have any such duty. The Complainant has failed to show that it was Opposite Party banks duty to return the said cheque. The Opposite Party has denied any deficiency in services and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
9. Since the Complainant has not filed any other proof whatsoever in support of his claim that the demand for the second cheque was placed with the Opposite Party bank and the same was not returned. The Complainant has simply denied the contention of the Opposite Party that it was Complainant’s duty to ask for the dishonoured cheque and failed to show to the contrary. The Complainant has also not been able to show that Opposite Party had given him slip for missing cheque as alleged as the perusal of slip clearly shows that it is pertaining to cheque no. 404865.  Thus, the Complainant has failed prove his case of deficiency in services on the part of Opposite Party bank.
10. In this context, we would like to place reliance on the judgement passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SGS India Ltd v. Dolphin International Ltd. (Oct 6, 2021) wherein it is upheld that “ the onus of proof of deficiency in service is on the Complainant in the complaints under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is the Complainant who had approached the Commission, therefore, without any proof of deficiency, the opposite party cannot be held responsible for deficiency in service.” The Division Bench in above cited case relied on its judgment reported in Ravneet Singh Bagga v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines & Anr. (2000 1 SCC 66) wherein it held that the burden of proving the deficiency in service is upon the person who alleges it.
11. In view of above, we find that the contentions raised by the Complainant in the complaint have not been substantiated /corroborated by sufficient documentary evidence and the onus being on the Complainant to prove his case, the Complainant has miserably failed to discharge the onus.
12. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that no case is made out for deficiency in services and unfair trade practices against the Opposite Party and as such, the present complaint is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
13. Order announced on 08.07.24.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Adarsh Nain)          Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President