Haryana

Karnal

CC/100/2022

Navdeep Rana - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager, ICICI Bank Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Nardeep Rana

05 Aug 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No. 100 of 2022

                                                        Date of instt.25.02.2022

                                                        Date of Decision:05.08.2024

 

Navdeep Rana son of Shri Zile Singh, resident of house no.858, Sector-9 Urban Estate, Karnal, now resident at Farm House no.1, in front of house no.318, Alfa City, Sector-29 Baldi (Karnal).

 

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1. Branch Manager, ICICI Bank Ltd. Sector-12, Urban Estate, Karnal.

 

2. ICICI Bank Ltd. Corporate office; ICICI Bank tower, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400051, through its Managing Director.

 

                                                                    …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Shri Jaswant Singh……President.     

      Shri Vineet Kaushik…….Member

      Ms. Sarvjeet Kaur .…..Member

 

 Argued by: Complainant in person.

                   Shri Amish Goyal, counsel for the OPs.

 

                     (Jaswant Singh, President)

ORDER:   

                

                The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that complainant is the holder of saving account bearing no.017301530946 and complainant is using the aforesaid account since long time. On 04.01.2020, complainant submitted a cheque bearing no.001991 dated 04.01.2020 amounting to Rs.55000/- issued by Ram Mehar drawn at O.B.C. Bank, for encashment in the aforesaid account. The OP no.1 has sent the same to OBC Bank, for encashment but aforesaid cheque has not been encashed and the same has been received back by the OP no.1 with the remarks funds insufficient and in this regard OP has charged and deducted a sum of Rs.118/- from the bank account of the complainant on 09.01.2020.  When complainant visited in the bank of the OP no.1 to collect the dishonoured cheque and memo dated 09.01.2020 then the bank official of the OP no.1 told that the aforesaid cheque and memo has sent at the address of the complainant and the same will be delivered to the complainant very soon but the same has not been received by the complainant. Thereafter, complainant visited the office of OP no.1 several times and requested to issue the dishonoured cheque and memo but OPs did pay any heed to the request of complainant and lingered the matter on one pretext or the other and lastly official of the OP no.1 told that the said cheque and memo has been misplaced somewhere and they assured that they would search the aforesaid cheque and memo very soon and would handover the same to the complainant. Thereafter, complainant visited the office of OP no.1 several times but every times official of the OPs told that the said cheque has not been traced out. Then complainant received a letter dated 04.02.2020 in which it is mentioned that “we regret to inform your that despite our earnest efforts, we were unable to trace the cheque, they seem to have been lost in transit. We requested you to treat this incident as an exception and not as a reflection of our service quality.”

2.             It is further alleged that after going through the said letter, complainant became surprise to see that OP no.1 is a responsible person of the bank and how OP no.1 can asked the complainant to treat this incident as an exception and not a reflection of their service quality. The complainant is having apprehension that OP no.1 and their employees incollusion with Ram Mehar, who has issued the aforesaid cheque has knowingly, intentionally and deliberately has lost the aforesaid cheque just to give benefit to the aforesaid Ram Mehar and just to cause loss to the complainant. After that, complainant approached the OP no.1 and requested to make the payment of the aforesaid cheque amount of Rs.55000/- to the complainant because due to the sole rash and negligent act of the OP no.1 and their employees, complainant has suffered loss of Rs.55118/-. Then complainant sent a legal notice dated 16.10.2021 but it also did not yield any result.  In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint.

3.             On notice, OPs appeared and filed its written version, raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; locus standi; cause of action and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that complainant has not visited the Bank for collecting the cheque in question rather the said cheque was lodged in clearing in account no.017301530946 dated 08.01.2020 and same was returned and dispatched to the customer on 09.01.2020 via POD no.19165320024147/Shree Maruti Courier. The cheque in question could not deliver to the customer as the customer changed his address without informing the Bank and he did not updated his new address in the Bank’s record. Thereafter, the cheque in question has been misplaced in transit. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

Parties then led their respective evidence.

4.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

5.             Complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of return memo dated 04.03.2020 Ex.C1, copy of letter issued by Bank dated 04.03.2020 Ex.C2, copy of passbook Ex.C3, copy of legal notice dated 16.10.2020 Ex.C4, postal receipts Ex.C5 and Ex.C6 and closed the evidence on 15.09.2022 by suffering separate statement.

6.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs has tendered into evidence affidavit of Manu Srivastava Ex.OP1/A, copy of Relationship Farm Ex.OP1, copy of passbook Ex.OP2 and closed the evidence on 02.11.2023 by suffering separate statement.

7.             We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

8.             Complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has submitted that he presented a cheque dated 04.01.2020 amounting to Rs.55000/- issued by Ram Mehar drawn at O.B.C. Bank, for encashment in the  bank of OP no.1. The OP no.1 has sent the same to OBC Bank, for encashment but aforesaid cheque has not been encashed and the same has been received back by the OP no.1 with the remarks “funds insufficient” and in this regard OP has deducted Rs.118/- from the bank account of the complainant. Complainant visited in the bank to collect the dishonoured cheque but the official of the OP no.1 told that the said cheque has been misplaced in transit. He further submitted that OP no.1 and their employees incollusion with Ram Mehar, has lost the aforesaid cheque just to give benefit to the aforesaid Ram Mehar. Complainant requested the OP no.1 to make the payment of the aforesaid cheque amount of Rs.55000/- but OPs did not pay any heed to the request of complainant and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

9.             Per contra, learned counsel or the OPs, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that complainant had changed his address without intimation to the OPs. The cheque in question has been sent to the complainant on his new address but due to change of the address the same was misplaced in transit. It is the complainant, who himself on fault and for that OPs cannot be blamed and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

10.           We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

11.           Admittedly, complainant presented a cheque of Rs.55000/- issued by one Ram Mehar in favour of the complainant for encashment with the OP no.1. The said cheque has been sent to OBC Bank by the OP no.1 for encashment but the said cheque has not been encashed and same has been received back by the OP no.1 with the remarks of ‘insufficient funds’. It is also admitted that in this regard an amount of Rs.118/- has been charged by the OPs.

12.           OPs have alleged that cheque in question could not delivered to the complainant because the complainant had changed his address without any intimation to the OPs.  Thus the cheque in question has been misplaced in transit. The onus to prove its version was relied upon the OPs but OPs have miserably failed to prove the same by leading any cogent and convincing evidence.

13.           OPs have sent a letter Ex.C1 dated 04.03.2020 with regard to dishonour of the cheque and letter Ex.C2 dated 04.03.2020 with regard to unable to trace the cheque in question on the same address  and same have been delivered to the complainant.

14.           Further, during the course of arguments, complainant has placed on file copy of notice dated 26.02.2024 i.e. Notice to resolve litigation dispute with ICICI Bank Limited via Conciliation and same was taken on record as Mark-A. Said letter sent by the Bank on the same address and same has been delivered to the complainant. OPs have sent the new cheque book to the complainant and same was delivered to the complainant on the same address and in this regard complainant has placed on file, photocopy of cheque book, same is taken as Mark-B. From the above documents, it has been proved that complainant has not changed his address and OPs have made a false excuse.

               

 15.          In view of the above, OPs have failed to prove on record that they have sent the cheque in question to the complainant. Thus, due to that act, complainant has suffered a loss of Rs.55118/-Had OPs returned the cheque in question to the complainant, complainant would have availed the remedy under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, but he was deprived by the OPs, thus the OPs cannot escape their liability.  Hence, the act of the OPs not returning the cheque in question to the complainant amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

16.           Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OPs to pay Rs.55118/- to the complainant. We further direct the OPs to pay Rs.20,000/- to the complainant on account of mental pain, agony and harassment suffered by him and towards the litigation expenses. This order shall be complied with within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order till its realization. It is made clear if the awarded amount is not paid by the OPs within stipulated period then this amount will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till its realization. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance

Announced

Dated:05.08.2024                                                                     

                                                            President,

                                                     District Consumer Disputes

                                                     Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

 (Vineet Kaushik)       (Sarvjeet Kaur)

                          Member                          Member