Date of decision : 27.3.2008<br /> Nirmal Singh son of Late Kartar Singh r/o Kalasanghian, Tehsil & District Kapurthala.<br /> Complainant.<br /> versus<br /> 1. The District Manager, The Kapurthala Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. Kapurthala.<br /> 2. The Manager,The Kapurthala Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. Branch Kalasanghian, District Kapurthala.<br /> 3. The Manager, HDFC Bank, Kapurthala.<br /> 4. The Manager, Canara Bank , Rajori Garden, New Delhi.<br /> Opposite parties.<br /> Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act.<br /> Quoram : Sh.A.K. Sharma President.<br /> Sh.Surinder Mittal, Member.<br /> Quoram : Sh.Vikas Uppal counsel for complainant.<br /> Sh.Sandeep Singh Walia counsel for opposite parties No.1 & 2.<br /> Sh.Vinay Garg counsel for opposite party No.3,<br /> Sh.Kamaljit Singh counsel for opposite party No.4.<br /> JUDGMENT ) SH.A.K. SHARMA PRESIDENT.)<br /> Present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date has been filed by the complainant Nirmal Singh against opposite parties i.e. the District Manager, Kapurthala Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. Kapurthala and also its Manager Branch Kalasanghian, The Manager HDFC Bank Kapurthala and also the Manager Canara Bank, Rajori Garden, New Delhi for seeking direction against the opposite parties to issue fresh cheque to the complainant for amount of Rs.40,000/- alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. and damages for mental agony and physical harassment due to deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties in respect of the lost cheque in transit.<br /> 2. Gist of the complaint is that Manjit Kaur issued a cheque No.286963 dated 20/12/2006 amounting to Rs.40,000/- in favour of the complainant on behalf of Jarnail Singh and same was sent for collection through opposite party No.3 HDFC Bank Kapurthala but the cheque was lost in transit. The Canara Bank Rajori Garden New Delhi issued a non-payment certificate for the cheque lost. Opposite party No.1 also requested Jarnail Singh vide letter dated 10/4/2007 to stop the payment of the cheque in Canara Bank and issue a fresh cheque to the party and that copy of letter was also sent to opposite party No.2 Branch Manager Kapurthala Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. Kalasanghian District Kapurthala but nothing was done. Hence he suffered financial loss of the cheque amount to which he is entitled alongwith interest. He also wrote letter dated 15/5/07 to the opposite parties. The Post Master of the Head Post Office Kapurthala had written letter to the counsel for the complainant regarding delivery of notices to the opposite parties No.1 and 4 for the purpose of sending cheque of Rs.40,000/- alongwith interest but in vain.<br /> 3. Opposite parties No.1 and 2 appeared and controverted the allegations of the complainant and resisted his claim. Certain preliminary objections have been raised that complaint is not maintainable against opposite parties No.1 and 2 nor there is any deficiency in service on their part and that Manjit Kaur was necessary party in the present litigation. On merits it is pleaded that cheque in question was sent for collection by the opposite parties to the Manager HDFC Bank Kapurthala and the same was lost in transit by opposite party No.3 and as such there was no deficiency or negligence in service on the part of opposite parties No.1 and 2.<br /> 4. Likewise opposite party No.3 i.e. HDFC Bank has also denied its liability to pay amount of lost cheque to the complainant as there is no deficiency in service on its part. The instrument which was sent stood lost in transit, so there is no question of negligence on the part of opposite party No.3 so as to entitle the complainant to the amount of cheque of Rs.40,000/- alongwith interest.<br /> 5. Opposite party No.4 Canara Bank as also resisted the claim of the complainant raising preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the complaint against it or any cause of action accrued to complainant against it. The cheque in question was sent for collection and the same was lost in transit by opposite parties NO.1 to 3. The said cheque never reached opposite party No.4 Canara Bank Rajori Garden New Delhi. However, on the request of opposite parties No.1 and 2, Canara Bank replied to the Kapurthala Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. that cheque in question was not debited to the Account so far and as such it was nowhere at fault. It has been wrongly impleaded as a party in the present litigation nor there was any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on its part.<br /> 6. In support of his version Nirmal Singh complainant has produced in evidence his own affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith documents Ex.C2 to C21.<br /> 7. On the other hand opposite party No.1 producedin evidence affidavit of Jaswant Singh Manager Ex.R1 whereas opposite party NO.2 produced in evidence document and affidavit Ex.R2 and R3.<br /> Opposite party No.3 HDFC Bank also produced in evidence affidavit of Harsimran Singh Branch Head of HDFC Bank Ex.R5 whereas opposite party No.4 produced in evidence affidavit of Kishore Arora Manager Canara Bank Ex.R4.<br /> 8. We have heard arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused ocular as well as documentary evidence on the record.. The controversy lies in narrow compass on the pleadings of the parties itself and the documents produced, this fact has been admitted by opposite party No.3 HDFC Bank that instrument of cheque amounting to Rs.40,000/- was sent by it for collection to opposite party No.4 but the same was lost in transit, so there is no negligence on its part. We alo find letter dated 10/4/07 of opposite parties No.1 and 2 that said cheque was sent for collection through HDFC Bank Kapurthala and was lost in transit and Canara Bank issued non payment certificate for cheque lost and asked Jarnail Singh to issue a fresh cheque to the party. This fact has also been confirmed by Canara Bank vide its letter Ex.C5 that the said cheque was not debited to the Account. There is also letter Ex.C8 dated 17/1/07 of the Manager the Kapurthala Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. Kalasanghian about loss of cheque in transit by HDFC Bank Kapurthala. Further admission of HDFC Bank vide letter Ex.R2 about loss of cheque in transit and to that effect is the affidavit of Branch head of HDFC Bank Kapurthala Ex.R5. There is also affidavit of Manager Canara Bank Ex.R4 that the said cheque never reached Canara Bank Rajori Garden New Delhi and on request of Kapurthala Central Co-operative Bank, cheque in question has not been debited to the Account and a such it is not at fault. The close analysis of entire evidence on the record produced by the parties, we are of the firm opinion that cheque amounting to Rs.40,000/- was lost in transit by opposite party No..3 i.e. Manager, HDFC Bank, Kapurthala and equally amount was not credited in the Account of complainant Nirmal Singh nor debited to the Account of payee Jarnail Singh as intimated by Canara Bank opposite party No.4. There is deficiency in service on the part of HDFC Bank opposite party No.3 but opposite parties No.1, 2 and 4 do not come into picture so as to fasten upon them any kind of liability . However, opposite party No.3 HDFC Bank Kapurthala is liable to pay some amount of compensation but not the entire amount of cheque. Reliance is also placed upon a case of Hon'ble National Commission on identical facts reported as 1 (2007) CPJ 1 Canara Bank vs. Sudhir Ahuja. Therefore, we award compensation to the extent of Rs.8000/- to the complainant against opposite party No.3 for deficiency in its service alongwith Rs.1000/- as litigation expenses, which would be paid by the opposite party NO.3 within a period of one month from the receipt of copy of this order.<br /> Let certified copies of judgment rendered be supplied/despatched to the parties without any unnecessary delay and thereafter file be consigned to record room.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Announced : ( Surinder Mittal ) ( A.K. Sharma )<br /> 27.3.2007 Member President.