BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

1.       Mr.Rohit Bhateja, s/o Mr.Ram Saran Dass Bhateja, R/o House No.325, Sector 21-A,Chandigarh.

2.       Mrs.Gauri Bhateja w/o Mr.Rohit Bhateja, R/o House No.325, Sector 21-A,Chandigarh.

…..Complainants

                                      V E R S U S

HDFC Bank Limited, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager,

                                                ……Opposite Party

CORAM:     SH.P.D.GOEL                                             PRESIDENT

                   SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL                        MEMBER

Argued by:    Sh.Tarun Jaitley, Counsel for complainants.

                        Sh. Rajiv Goel, Counsel for OP.                

PER P.D. GOEL, PRESIDENT

1.                 Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainants opened a joint saving account in the Bank of OP in the year 2002 vide A/c No.1071000118824.

                    It is case of the complainants that due to some personal reasons, they could not regularly operate their account, so decided to close it. A letter of intimation was also sent to the bank on 10.5.2011. The complainants requested the OP to pay the amount of Rs.65,000/- approximately by way of pay order.

                    It is further case of the complainant that despite of number of requests and personal visits, the OP failed to issue the pay order. They also did not pay any heed to the genuine request of complainant. Hence this complaint.

2.                The OP in their reply, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, pleaded that on the request of the complainants, the pay order of Rs.64,998.63 dated 12.5.2011 was issued by the OP-bank. The complainants, while giving letter of intimation for closure of account made a request to collect the pay order.

                    It is further pleaded that the bank issued the pay order just after receiving the letter of intimation for closure of bank account from the complainants. The complainants were informed that the pay order is ready, but they replied that they will personally collect the pay order. The OP-bank issued a fresh pay order dated 10.9.2011, so that the pay order issued on 12.5.2011 might not lapse. The complainants never visited the bank to collect the pay order. In view of this, the OP pleaded that there was no deficiency in service and a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint.  

3.                Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

5.                During the course of arguments as is clear from the order sheet dated 14.12.2011, the Counsel for the OP handed over pay order of Rs.64998.63 dated 10.9.2011 favouring complainant No.1 bearing No.054617 drawn on HDFC Bank, which was accepted by Counsel for the complainants. The learned Counsel for the complainants stated that since the pay order has been handed over to him after filing of the complaint, therefore, the complainants are entitled for compensation and litigation costs.

6.                It has been averred by the complainants that despite of number of requests and personal visits, the OP-bank failed to issue the pay order. On the other hand, the OP-bank has raised the plea that the pay order of Rs.64998.63 dated 12.5.2011 was issued by the bank but the complainants failed to collect the same, as they wanted to collect it personally. The OP has also pleaded that a fresh pay order dated 10.9.2011 was prepared, so that the pay order issued on 12.5.2011 might not lapse.

7.                The complainants have annexed the copy of the pay order of Rs.64998.63 – Annexure A-1 issued by the OP-bank in favour of complainant No.1, which supports the defence raised by the OP-bank that in fact the pay order of Rs.64998.63 favouring complainant No.1 was prepared on 12.5.2011. The complainants have also produced on record Annexure A-2, the copy pay order of Rs.64998.63 dated 10.9.2011, which further proves the defence of the OP-bank that the fresh pay order dated 10.9.2011 – Annexure A-2 was prepared, so that the pay order issued on 12.5.2011 might not lapse. Both the Annexures A-1 & A-2 have been produced by the complainants which proves the defence raised by the OP-bank.

8.                As a result of the above discussion, it is held that the OP-bank prepared the pay order of Rs.64998.63 on 12.5.2011 and when the complainants did not turn up to collect the same, the fresh pay order dated 10.9.2011 was issued, so that the pay order issued on 12.5.2011 did not lapse. In view of this, the allegation of the complainants that despite of number of requests and personal visits, the OP-bank failed to issue the pay order did not survive. Consequently, it is held that the complainants are not entitled for any compensation or litigation costs. The complaint stands disposed of accordingly.

9.                Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.