Haryana

Ambala

CC/73/2016

Himmat Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager ICICI Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Rakesh Achint

28 Dec 2017

ORDER

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

                                                               Complaint No. 73 of 2016.

              Date of Institution: 03.02.2016.

   Date of final order: 28.12.2017.

 

Himmat Singh son of Shri Surjan Singh r/o 40, Lakshmi Vihar Jandli, Ambala City.

                                                                        ….Complainant.

                                       Versus

1. Branch Manager, ICICI Bank, near Rajan Sarees, Aggarwain Chowk, Ambala City.
2. Manager, Director, ICICI, ICICI Bank Ltd. ICICI Bank Towers, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai.

                                                                 …..Opposite parties.

                          Complaint under section 12 of

 

Before: Sh. Dina Nath Arora, President.

    Sh. Pushpender Kumar, Member.   

 

Present:  Sh. Rakesh Achint, Adv. for complainant.

              Sh. A.K.Kaushik, Adv. for opposite parties.

                             

ORDER:

 

             The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is having saving bank account No.001001004872 with the OPs. On 19.03.2015 he presented a cheque No.437753 of Rs.1,25,000/-  of Syndicate Bank payable at Jaipur in his account for clearance and during normal course of business he enquired for the same but it came to his knowledge that the same was got dishonoured by Syndicate Bank. Thereafter the complainant visited the Ops and asked for returning the original unpaid cheque but it delayed the matter on one pretext or the other.  The complainant requested the OPs to supply written communication but to no avail. The complainant got served legal notice upon the OPs but it fell on deaf ears. Due to the deficiency on the part of OPs the complainant has suffered mental agony and financial loss. In evidence, the complainant has tendered affidavit Annexure CX and documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C5.

2.             On notice, OPs appeared and contested the complaint of the complainant by filing joint reply wherein several preliminary objections such as maintainability, estoppal, locus standi and suppression of material facts etc. have been taken. It has been submitted that on 19.03.2015 the complainant had presented the cheque No.437753 of Rs.1,25,000/- of Syndicate Bank, payable at Jaipur which was sent for encashment to concerned bank but after dishonouring of the same due to “payment stopped by the drawer” the cheque in question was not received in the branch of Ops. The complainant has neither visited the bank nor enquired about the status of the cheque.  If he had knowledge about dishonouring of the cheque then he should have filed complaint under Section 138 of NI Act against the person who had issued the same but he has filed the present complaint in order to harass it. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Other contentions made in the complaint have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. In evidence the OPs have tendered affidavit Annexure RA and document Annexure R1.

3.             We have heard Ld. counsel of both the parties and also perused the record placed on file.

4.                    Learned counsel for complainant argued that complainant is having saving account number with opposite parties and he had deposited a cheque No.437753 for Rs.1,25,000/- drawn at Syndicate Bank payable at Jaipur but the above said cheque has been lost by the opposite parties and complainant is entitled for the above said cheque amount of Rs.1,25,000/- along with interest besides compensation for mental agony and harassment and prayed to allow the complaint.

5.             On the other hand, Counsel for opposite parties argued that the cheque in question was dishonoured and the same has never been returned back to them, therefore, there is no negligence on the part of the opposite party and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

6.             After hearing Ld. counsel of both the parties, we have gone through the record placed on file. There is no dispute that complainant has presented the cheque No.437753 for Rs.1,25,000/- of Syndicate Bank payable at Jaipur.  It is not disputed that the cheque in question has not been received by the complainant after dishonouring the same by the concerned bank. The Ops in their reply have mentioned that the cheque in question has not been received by them.

7.             In view of the above version of parties, it is clear that the cheque in question has either been lost in the office of opposite parties or lost in transit. When there is no dispute that cheque in question was sent by OPs to the concerned bank for clearance and the same was dishonoured due to “payment stopped by the drawer” then it was the duty of the Ops/bank to intimate about the status of the cheque but there is nothing on the file to show that the OPs have neither intimated the complainant about the misplacing of the cheque nor any efforts have been made to trace the same. As per the version of the complainant he came to know that the cheque was lost when he approached to the OPs-bank in order to know the status of the cheque on 21.07.2015. It is evident from the notice Annexure C2 dated 18.08.2015 meaning thereby he was very much in the knowledge that the cheque has been lost. In the present complaint the complainant has prayed for paying the cheque amount of Rs.1,25,000/- alongwith compensation. From the above said facts it is clear that on 21.07.2015 the complainant was well aware that cheque has been lost and as per the law the limitation for filing of suit is three years and there was sufficient time for the complainant to approach civil court by way of suit for recovery.

                Hon’ble National Commission in case law titled as State Bank of India Vs. Untha Lakshmi Kumari (2009) CPJ 198 (NC) has held that cheque misused/encashed, not moved-Bank not liable to pay cheque amount-order of State Commission set de- Compensation for deficiency in vice on part of bank awarded. The other case titled as Canara Bank Vs. Sudhir Ahuja 1 (2007) CPJ 1 (NC) in which it was held that neither amount credited nor cheque returned-Deficiency in service proved-Bank liable to pay some amount of compensation and not entire amount of cheque-order of State Commission directing OP to pay entire cheque amount not legally sustainable-OP liable to pay Rs.5,000/- compensation.

8.                     In view of the above said discussion, it is proved that the officials of the opposite parties are negligent in performing their duty and great deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is proved. In view of the law discussed above (Supra), the complainant is only entitled for compensation. The complaint is partly allowed with costs which is assessed at Rs.3,000/- and the compensation is assessed at Rs.25,000/-. The opposite parties are directed as under:-

1. To pay a sum of Rs.25,000/-(Rs.Twenty five thousand only) as compensation to the complainant within 30 days  after receiving the certified copy of this order failing which the amount would carry interest @ 9 % per annum till realization of the amount.

 

Copies of order be supplied to the parties under the rule. File be consigned to the record-room after due compliance.

 

Announced on: 28.12.2017

 

 

                                                                (D.N.Arora)

                        (Pushpender Kumar)          President,

                        Member             District Consumer Disputes                                                               Redressal Forum, Ambala