Punjab

Sangrur

CC/1/2018

Ranbeer Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC Bank Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Rohit Jain

14 May 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.    001

                                                Instituted on:      02.01.2018

                                                Decided on:       14.05.2018

 

 

Ranbeer Singh son of Gian Singh, resident of Village Gowara, Tehsil Malerkotla, District Sangrur.

                                                        ..Complainant

 

                                        Versus

1.     HDFC Bank Ltd. through its Branch Manager, Thandi Sarak, Malerkotla, District Sangrur through its Manager.

2.     HDFC Bank Ltd. through its Manager, Head Office: SCO 78 & 79, Madhya Marg, Sector 8C, Chandigarh 160008.

3.     Trackon Courier through its Proprietor/Partner, Near Axis Bank Ltd. Backside Bus Stand, Malerkotla, Distt. Sangrur. 

                                                        ..Opposite parties

 

For the complainant    :       Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate.

For OP No.1&2         :       Shri S.S.Punia, Adv.

For OP No.3              :       Shri Ramit Pathak, Adv.

 

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg,  Member

               

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, Presiden:

 

1.             Shri Ranbeer Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant is the consumer of the OPs by having a saving bank account number 50100023447989. Further case of the complainant is that he advanced a loan of Rs.2,80,000/- to one Narinder Singh and in discharge of the above said loan amount, the said Narinder Singh issued a cheque number 782913 dated 20.8.2017 for Rs.2,80,000/- drawn on State Bank of India, Malerkotla, as such, the complainant presented the said cheque to OP number 1 for its encashment, but the said cheque was not honoured by State Bank of India and sent back to OP number 1 along with memo dated 23.8.2017.  But, the grievance of the complainant is that the OP number 1 did not sent back the dishonoured cheque to the complainant immediately, rather the cheque in question was received by the complainant through courier i.e. OP number 3 on 30.11.2017 after the expiry of the cheque.  Further case of the complainant is that though he approached the OPs for payment of the cheque and to know the reason for late delivery of the cheque, but of no avail.  Further case of the complainant is that by this way, the complainant has suffered a loss of Rs.2,80,000/- due to non returning of the cheque within time. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to credit the amount of Rs.2,80,000/ in the account of the complainant along with interest @ 12% per annum from 23.8.2017 and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by OPs number 1 and 2, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant has unnecessarily dragged the OP into unwanted litigation, that the complainant has got no locus standi and cause of action to file the present complaint and that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to hear and try the present complaint. On merits,  it is admitted that the complainant is having a saving bank account with it and further it is admitted that the cheque in question was deposited with the OP number 1 and when the cheque was not cleared, then the OP number 1 sent the said cheque number 782913 dated 20.8.2017 for Rs.2,80,000/- to the complainant along with the memo. It is stated that the complainant never approached the OP for late receipt of the cheque in question. However, any negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the OP number 1 and 2 has been denied.

 

3.             In reply filed by OP number 3, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands, that the complainant has concealed material facts from this Forum and that the complaint is false and should be dismissed. On merits, it is stated that the OP has delivered the envelope on the address provided and thus there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.  The allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-5 and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP number 1 and 2 has produced Ex.OP1&2/1 to Ex.OP1&2/2 documents and affidavit and closed evidence.  The learned counsel for OP number 3 has produced Ex.OP3/1 to Ex.OP3/4 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence.  

 

5.             We have very carefully perused the pleadings of the parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits part acceptance, for these reasons.

 

6.             After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the documents placed on record, we are of the opinion that the complainant comes under the definition of ‘consumer’ and this Forum has the jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint.

 

7.             In the present case the dispute is only about the cheque in question bearing number 782913 dated 20.08.2017 which was deposited by the complainant  with OP number 1 was returned uncashed by State Bank of India branch Malerkotla with the remarks “cheque threshold limit beyond cheque limit”.  Though the OP number 1 after receipt of the cheque sent it to the complainant through courier, but it reached to the complainant through OP number 3 only on 30.11.2017 and during the period the cheque got stale meaning thereby its validity expired.  Now, the fact remains that the cheque in question Ex.C-2, which was got deposited by the complainant with OP number 1 was returned by the State Bank of India on 23.8.2017  to OP number 1, who forwarded the same to the complainant through courier i.e. OP number 3 and not by registered post. Had the cheque been sent by OP number 1 through registered post to the complainant, then it must have been delivered to the complainant or returned back to the OP number 1 and such situation would not have arisen. Further the learned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently that due to that he could not file even a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act against the said Narinder Singh, who had issued the cheque in question to the complainant.  But, we are unable to go with this contention of the learned counsel for the complainant that due to late receipt of cheque, he is unable to recover the amount from the said Narinder Singh.  There are so many other ways available with the complainant for recovery of the amount, but it is beyond any doubt that the OP number 1 is deficient in service by not sending the cheque to the complainant promptly within the validity period of the cheque meaning thereby the OP was bound to return the cheque to the complainant immediately after receipt from the State Bank of India, Malerkotla.  As such, we are of the considered opinion that the OP number 1 is deficient in service for which the  OP number 1 is liable to pay compensation.

 

 

8.             In view of the facts mentioned above, we allow the complaint partly and direct OP number 1 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.10,000/- on account of compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment and further an amount of Rs.5000/- on account of litigation expenses.

 

 

9.             This order of ours be complied with within a period of 30 days of receipt of copy of this order. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                        Pronounced.

                        May 14, 2018.

                                                       

                                                              (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                                    President

 

 

 

                                                                   (Sarita Garg)

                                                                       Member