DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016
Case No.229/2020
Sh. Rup Basant
S/o Late Sh. Jiwan Dass
R/o A-247, Shivalik Malviya Nagar,
New Delhi -110017
….Complainant
Versus
1. HDFC Bank Ltd.
C-32, Malviya Nagar,
New Delhi-110017
Through its Manager
2. HDFC Bank Ltd.
E-143, Saket,
New Delhi 110017
Through its Manager
….Opposite Party
Date of Institution :01.12.2020
Date of Order : 08.10.2024
Coram:
Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
Present: Adv. Amarnath Jha for complainant.
Adv. Nikita Sarma, proxy counsel on behalf of Adv. Aman Leekha for OP-1 and OP-2
ORDER
Member: Ms. Kiran Kaushal
1. Briefly put complainant deposited a cheque on 19.12.2018 with HDFC Bank Ltd. Malviya Nagar hereinafter referred to as OP-1.
2. It is stated that the complainant deposited a cheque of Rs.78,373.52 issued in favour of the complainant, by Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Co. Ltd. The cheque was deposited with OP-1 Bank Branch for collection and credit to complainant’s bank account with HDFC Bank Ltd., Saket (OP-2). It is stated that as per banking norms the cheque should have been credited on the same day as the drawee and the drawn bank were the same. However, since no credit was made in the complainant’s account even after three days complainant made several visits to OPs and also gave a hand written request on 24.12.2018 to ‘Stop’ the cheque payment but the said request was declined orally.
3. It is further stated that the complainant came to know that the cheque in question was lost allegedly by the NOIDA Branch and the same was not traceable. It is next stated that the complainant was to remit an amount of Rs.50,000/- in some court case out of the proceeds of the said cheque. Since OPs had lost the cheque, complainant had to suffer the fund crunch causing further harassment.
4. It is stated that the complainant is a senior citizen aged 79 years with failing health who has suffered not only mentally, physically and financially but also suffered loss of interest on the principal amount during the period from 24.12.2018 till receipt of the amount from the drawer.
5. Alleging deficiency of service complainant prays for direction to OP to pay compensation for mental agony and harassment to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/-; loss of interest on the cheque amount i.e. 1,560/-; expenses of follow ups Rs.3,190/- and Rs.5,000/- towards legal expenses.
6. OP-1 and OP-2 filed the written statement stating interalia that complainant has not filed any cogent evidence to prove the damages that he is claiming. It is stated that the cheque in question was deposited with OPs on 19.12.2018 and complainant within five days i.e. 24.12.2018 was informed about the cheque being lost. The OP Bank had requested the complainant to treat the letter dated 24.12.2018 as non-payment certificate. It is further stated that the amount in respect of the said cheque was credited in the complainant’s account in January 2019. Moreover, period of five days is considered to be reasonable in the given fact that the volume of cheques which are to be cleared in a given day are huge.
7. In light of the facts stated above it is prayed that complaint be dismissed being non-maintainable.
8. Rejoinder in filed by the complainant wherein it is stated that the complainant is engaged in a property dispute with one Ms. Sanjana Chopra and against her legal action was intended, for which advance payment of Rs.50,000/- was demanded by the counsel towards court fee and lawyers fee etc. The complainant had to defer his plan because of fund crunch created by OP.
9. It is stated that the complainant was not informed within five days and the complainant had to request the drawer of the cheque to issue a duplicate of the said instrument. It is stated that OP had purposely not disclosed the actual date of deposit in the account of the complainant and it was only on the basis of another cheque issued by the drawer that the complainant after good and long struggle received the amount stated in the cheque.
10. Evidence and written submissions have been filed on behalf of parties. Submissions made by the Ld. Counsels are heard. Material placed on record is perused.
11. Admittedly the cheque deposited by the complainant on 19.12.2018 was lost in transit by the OPs. OP in support of their case has filed reply to the legal notice of the complainant on 28.10.2020 wherein it is mentioned that the complainant had received the credit of Rs.78,373.52 on 09.01.2019 from Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Company which is equivalent to the amount of the lost cheque.
12. Complainant in his legal notice has admitted to have received a letter dated 24.12.2018 wherein he was informed that the cheque in question had been lost. However, the same has been withheld from the Commission for the reasons best known to the complainant. The complainant has not been able to establish the damages caused due to the cheque being lost.
13. This Commission is of the considered view that complainant who is stated to be a senior citizen must have gone through physical and mental stress on account of the cheque being lost. Moreover, OP is silent on the aspect of fresh new instrument that was issued by the drawer which would not have been possible without the complainant pursuing and following up with the drawer. The same would have caused inconvenience and harassment to the complainant for no fault of his.
14. In light of the discussion above, OPs are directed to pay Rs.15,000/- as compensation towards mental and physical agony caused to the complainant within three months from the date of order failing which OP shall pay Rs.15,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum till realization.
Copy of this order be given to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to record room. Order be uploaded on the website.
