BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint no.221/13.
Date of instt.: 03.10.2013.
Date of Decision: 08.07.2016.
1. Shri Ram 2. Khilla Ram 3. Banta Ram Ss/o Sh. Maiya Ram 4. Darshna D/o Sh. Maiya Ram, all residents of Village Siwan, Tehsil and Distt. Kaithal.
……….Complainant.
Versus
1. The Manager, Canara Bank, Chhatrawas Road, Kaithal, Distt. Kaithal.
2. The Canara Bank, Main Branch, Karnal through its General Manager.
..……..Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Sh. Jagmal Singh, President.
Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.
Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.
Present : Sh. Anil Chutani, Advocate for complainants.
Sh. Sudeep Malik, Advocate for the opposite party.No.1.
Op No.2 already exparte.
ORDER
(JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT).
The complainants have filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that they are having accounts bearing No.4231, 15361, 15362 & 15363 respectively in the Op’s bank. It is alleged that previously some land of complainants were acquired against which the Land Acquisition Collector, Urban Estate, Panchkula issued cheques bearing No.746049, 746050, 746051 & 746052 dt. 05.12.2012 worth Rs.10450/-, Rs.3969/-, Rs.5915/- & Rs.10,125/- in favour of complainants as compensation, which were duly presented by the complainants in OP’s bank for encashment. It is further alleged that despite of presentation of cheques of OP’s bank, when the amount drawn in the cheques were not crediites into the accounts of complainants, upon which the complainants approached the Ops but the said cheques were lost by the Ops. It is further alleged that despite of several visits, the above-said cheques were not traced out by the Ops. This way, the Ops are deficient in service. Hence, this complaint is filed.
2. Upon notice, the opposite party No.1 appeared before this forum, whereas Op No.2 did not appear and was proceeded against exparte vide order dt. 16.05.2016. Op No.1 filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that the present complaint is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties; that the answering Op had sent all the cheques for collection to its Karnal Branch for onward collection from Indusind Bank but the same were misplaced there. It is stated that now the cheques have been traced at Karnal but the validity period of cheques had already expired. The complainants were duly apprised about the facts and were advised to get the cheque re-validated on the expenses of the bank but they flatly refused to do so. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops. On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. In support of his case, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C11 and closed evidence on 04.09.2014. On the other hand, the Op No.1 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.R1 and documents Ex.R2 to Ex.R12 and closed evidence on 26.03.2015.
4. We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.
5. Ld. Counsel for the Op No.1 contended that all the complainants have separate cheques, so, they have separate cause of action. One complaint has been filed by the four complainants regarding separate cheques is not maintainable. He further contended that according to the provision of Section 12(1)(c) of C.P.Act, 1986, one joint petition is not maintainable. No doubt, the complainants have not obtained the permission of this Forum but in this regard, we can rely upon the authorities produced by the complainant cited in 2016(1) CLT page 175 (CHD) titled as Varun Bakshi & others Vs. M/s. Unitech Ltd. & others. In the head-note of this authority, it is mentioned that Joint complaint-Prior permission of Commission-Once, complaint has been ordered to be registered and admitted-The permission is deemed to have been granted. The other authority produced by the complainant is cited in 2016(2) CLT page 462(NC) titled as Sudhir Kumar Singh & others Vs. Landcraft Developers Pvt. Ltd. & others, where in the head-note, it is mentioned that Allotment of flat-Same interest-Complaint filed by 10 complainants-Plea of Op that all the complainants have not got ‘same interest’-Held-The project is same-The opposite parties are the same-All these cases pertain to flats-Plea rejected. So, in view of these authorities, we are of the view that the contention of Op No.1 has no force because all the four complainants are real brothers and sister and they have same interest and moreover, the Ops are same. These authorities are fully applicable to the facts of present case.
6. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we found that the complainants are having accounts bearing No.4231, 15361, 15362 & 15363 respectively in the Op’s bank. The land of complainants was acquired against which the Land Acquisition Collector, Urban Estate, Panchkula issued cheques bearing No.746049, 746050, 746051 & 746052 dt. 05.12.2012 worth Rs.10450/-, Rs.3969/-, Rs.5915/- & Rs.10,125/- respectively in favour of complainants. The complainants duly presented the above-said cheques in their accounts with the Op No.1 for encashment. After a long gap, the complainants approached the Ops for encashment of cheques but got astonished to know about the fact that the cheques have been lost and not traced till the filing of the complaint. The concerned Officer/Manager prepared a letter in favour of Land Acquisition Collector, Panchkula for re-issuing the duplicate cheques in favour of complainants but the cheques were not re-issued. On the other hand, the Op No.1 contended that they sent all the cheques to Karnal Branch for clearance as the same were to be cleared from Indusind Bank, Karnal but the same were misplaced there. Now the cheques have been traced out from Op No.2 but the validity period of cheques had already been expired, so, the payment of these cheques could not be made.
7. From the pleadings and evidence of the case, it is clear that the cheques were deposited by the complainants with Op No.1 and Op No.1 sent the same to Op No.2. Moreover, the Op No.1 has specifically mentioned in its reply that the cheques were sent to Op No.2 for collection and the same were misplaced there. The Op No.2 has not filed any reply because Op No.2 opted to proceed against exparte.
8. Thus, it is crystal clear that the cheques were misplaced due to negligence of Op No.2. The complainant produced the authorities cited in III(2007) CPJ page 30(NC) titled as Corporation Bank and State Bank of Patiala Vs. Rajender Lal & others, IV(2003) CPJ page 52 (NC), wherein it is held that cheque deposited for collection-dishonoured due to insufficient of funds, lost in transit-legally open for complainant to initiate civil/criminal proceedings-Op not liable to pay cheque amount-OP failed to inform complainant about dishonour of cheque and its loss in transit, cannot escape liability for payment of reasonable compensation-Order mofified accordingly. The complaint under the C.P.Act, 1986 can be filed only for compensation based on deficiency in service arising out of loss of cheques but not for recovery of the entire cheque amount. These authorities are fully applicable to the facts of the present case. Moreover, in the present case, the complainants are at liberty to re-validated the cheques or in the alternative to get re-issue the cheques from the Land Acquisition Collector concerned as the payment regarding the cheques have not been withdrawn. Thus, we are of the considered view that the complainants are entitled to reasonable compensation only and so, we assess the same to the tune of Rs.10,000/-.
9. Therefore, as a sequel of above discussion, we allow the complaint partly and direct the Op No.2 to pay Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) by way of compensation to the complainants. Both the Ops are also directed that if the Land Acquisition Collector in question requires the fulfillment of any formality from the Ops, the Ops are bound to complete the same regarding the re-validation or re-issuance of the cheques regarding the amount in question. No order as to costs. Let the order be complied with within 30 days, failing which, the complainants shall be entitled interest @ 8% p.a. on the awarded compensation. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced.
Dt.08.07.2016.
(Jagmal Singh),
President.
(Harisha Mehta), (Rajbir Singh),
Member. Member.
