BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAS NAGAR, MOHALI
Consumer Complaint No.710 of 2014
Date of institution: 19.12.2014
Date of Decision: 02.07.2015
Yogi Raj son of Lt. Butaram, Resident of House No.602, Chandigarh Enclave, Zirakpur, District, SAS Nagar, Mohali.
……..Complainant
Versus
General Manager, HDFC Bank, Brar Complex, Patiala Road, Zirakpur, District SAS Nagar (Mohali).
………. Opposite Party
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
CORAM
Mrs. Madhu. P. Singh, President.
Shri Amrinder Singh, Member
Mrs. R.K. Aulakh, Member.
Present: Shri Arif Qureshi, counsel for the complainant.
Shri Sunil Narang, counsel for the OP.
(Mrs. Madhu P. Singh, President)
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint seeking following direction to the Opposite Party (for short ‘the OP’) to:
(a) pay him compensation of Rs.4,50,000/- for mental agony, harassment and loss of cheque of Rs.2,00,000/-
(b) pay him Rs.10,000/- as litigation costs.
The case of the complainant is that he got a cheque No.501628 from Mr. Kabul Singh son of Sada Singh, resident of Amritsar on account of agreement to sell and deposited the cheque of Rs.2.00 lacs on 19.12.2012 in his account No.01541000096955 maintained with the OP vide receipt Ex.C-1. The proceeds of the cheque was not reflected in the account of the complainant, therefore, he has visited the OP on number of occasions to know the status of the cheque and ultimately found that the Op had failed to trace the cheque. Therefore, due to the acts of the OP the complainant has suffered financial loss and on this account he has alleged deficiency in service on the part of the OP and sought compensation for untraced cheque as well as mental agony.
2. After admission of the complaint, notice was sent to the OP. The OP appeared and filed reply by taking preliminary objections that the complaint involves various complex issues and adjudication by civil court. Further the OP has resisted the complaint denying any deficiency on its part and took a stand that it is not the case of loss of cheque of the complainant. The OP has admitted the presentation of cheque by the complainant and pleaded that the cheque No.501628 of Rs.2,00,000/- was returned unpaid on the ground cheque stale vide memo dated 21.12.2012 and the complainant was duly informed telephonically about the return of the said cheque being unpaid and he was requested to take back the original cheque and dishonoring memo but the complainant never came to the OP. The cheque was never lost. Thus, denying any deficiency in service on its part, the OP has sought dismissal of the complaint.
3. To succeed in the complaint, the complainant proved on record affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 and tendered in evidence documents Ex.C-1 to C-3.
4. To rebut the allegations of the complainant, the OPs tendered the affidavit of Anuj Bhatia, Branch Manager Ex.OP-1/1 and documents Ex.OP-1 to OP-5.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the case file and written arguments filed by the complainant.
6. Once the OP has admitted having presentation of cheque No.501628 in account No.01541000096955 of the complainant on 19.12.2012, it was the onerous duty of the OP to ensure the transaction to be complete and amount is credited to the account of the complainant. In the present complaint, the OP has admitted having presented the cheque and having received unpaid on the ground that the cheque is stale vide returned memo dated 21.12.2012. The OP was duty bound to inform the complainant about the status of the cheque being returned unpaid. The limited issue in this regard is to see from evidence whether the OP has discharged its obligation of providing information of the status of the unpaid cheque received back by it from the bank. In this regard the contention of the counsel for the OP is that information regarding unpaid cheque and returned memo was sent to the complainant by registered post on 27.12.2012, however, the article sent vide registered post was received back by them with the remarks of the postal authorities ‘left returned to addressee’. The OP has proved his contention from Ex.OP-3 i.e. the copy of the report of the postal authorities on the body of the envelope as well as cheque and return memo Ex.OP-4 and Ex.OP-5 which was sent in the envelope returned back by the postal authorities. So far so good, the one step taken by the OP to give information about the unpaid cheque and return memo goes in favour of the OP, however, the OP has not taken any further steps once the said cheque envelope has been received back unserved. Therefore, the OP bank has deprived the complainant of an opportunity to take up the matter immediately with the concerned quarter or seek redressal to legal remedy.
7. The counsel for the complainant has drawn our attention to the application form of saving account opening application form duly filled and signed by him Ex.OP-1 wherein his telephone number has been mentioned. As per the complainant had the OP been careful, it would have informed him on his telephone number which is duly recorded in its record and the OP has never done so. Had the OP informed the complainant about the return cheque memo for not crediting the amount of cheque of Rs.2.00 lacs and returned the cheque to him, he would have recovered the amount of the said cheque by civil or other legal proceedings. Due to the conduct of the OP, the complainant is deprived from taking any legal action and could not recover Rs.2.00 lacs, the amount of the disputed cheque.
8. The OP has in its written statement taken a stand that it had informed the complainant telephonically to come and collect the cheque but there is no evidence on record to show any conversation between the parties in this regard. However, during the course of proceedings the OP has shown its willingness to handover the unpaid returned cheque to the complainant. The complainant is not willing and ready to accept the cheque as the validity of the cheque had expired. Thus, the retention of unpaid returned cheque of Rs.2.00 lacs alongwith returned memo by the OP and not giving any proper and effective communication in this regard to the complainant is an act of deficiency of service on the part of the OP as the complainant has been deprived of his valuable property of Rs.2.00 lacs and has further been mentally harassed and has been financially put at peril. In support of our above findings we rely upon the order of the Hon’ble National Commission in State Bank of India Vs. Anand Prakash, III (2007) CPJ 95 and State Bank of India Vs. Smt. Sita Devi, 2013 (4) CLT 327 where the facts were somewhat similar that the intimation about the loss of cheque in transit by the bank to the complainant, after the expiry of the validity period of the cheque is held to be deficiency in service. Hence, the complaint deserves to be allowed and the complainant deserves to be compensated.
9. The complaint is hereby allowed with the following direction to the OP:
(a) to credit the cheque amount of Rs.2.00 lacs (Rs. Two lacs only) alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from 27.12.2012 i.e. the date when the OP received back undelivered registered letter till realization, in the complainant’s saving account No.01541000096955. However, the said amount be released to the complainant subject to submitting affidavit by the complainant as well as the drawer of the cheque Kabul Singh that neither the complainant has so far not received money against the disputed cheque from Kabul Singh nor Kabul Singh has not given any money against the disputed cheque to the complainant.
(b) to pay a lump sum compensation of Rs.20,000/- (Rs. Twenty thousand only) for mental agony, harassment and costs of litigation.
Compliance of this order be made within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Certified copies of the order be furnished to the parties forthwith free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced.
July 02, 2015.
(Mrs. Madhu P. Singh)
President
(Amrinder Singh)
Member
(Mrs. R.K. Aulakh)
Member
