Haryana

StateCommission

A/895/2016

BISHAN DASS - Complainant(s)

Versus

DENA BANK - Opp.Party(s)

NONISH KUMAR

27 Oct 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal    No  :    895 of  2016

Date of Institution  :      28.09.2016    

Date of Decision    :      27.10.2016

  

Bishan Dass s/o Shri Harnam Dass, Resident of House No.24, Shivpuri B, near Ram Krishna School, behind ITI, District Yamuna Nagar.  

                                      Appellant-Complainant

Versus

 

1.      Dena Bank, near Kamani Chowk, Yamuna Nagar, through its Branch Manager.  

 

2.      The Punjab National Bank, Bilaspur, District Yamuna Nagar, through its Branch Manager.

                                      Respondents-Opposite Parties

CORAM:

                             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                                                                                                                  

For the Parties:  Shri Vijay Partap, Advocate proxy on behalf of Shri Nonish Kumar, Advocate for appellant.

                              

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

          This complainant’s appeal is directed against the order dated August 3^rd, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Yamuna Nagar, (for short District Forum), seeking a substantial enhancement of the relief granted.

2.                  Bishan Dass-complainant (appellant herein) was maintaining account No.110010002429 with Dena Bank, Yamuna Nagar-opposite party No.1. He deposited a crossed cheque No.593458 worth Rs.40,000/- with the opposite party No.1. The cheque was issued by one H.S. Shahal (hereinafter referred to as ‘drawer’) in favour of the complainant.  The cheque amount was to be collected from drawee bank, that is, Punjab National Bank, Bilaspur-Opposite Party No.2, (hereinafter referred to as ‘drawee bank’). The opposite party No.1 sent the above said cheque to the drawee bank through registered post for collection of the amount on 29^th July, 2010. However, the cheque was misplaced somewhere in transit and it could not be encashed in favour of the complainant. The complainant was informed about the loss of cheque. He filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking direction to the opposite parties to pay the cheque amount of Rs.40,000/- alongwith interest and compensation.  

3.                Upon notice, the opposite parties contested the complaint by filing written version wherein they denied any kind of deficiency in service and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                Vide impugned order, the District Forum accepted the complaint directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.2,000/- litigation expenses.

5.                Learned counsel for the appellant-complainant has contended that the cheque amount should have been awarded to the complainant by way of compensation.

6.                Indisputably, the cheque in question was lost in transit. It is not the case of the complainant that the cheque was encashed by any other person. In this view of the matter, the contention raised on behalf of the complainant that the bank is liable to pay the amount of cheque to the complainant is not tenable. So, question of awarding the amount of cheque by way of compensation does not arise.   The District Forum has already granted adequate compensation to the complainant and no case for interference in the impugned order is made out.

7.                In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merit.

 

 

Announced: 27.10.2016

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 

CL