DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,SANGRUR.

                                                          Complaint No. 138

                                                          Instituted on:   02.04.2019

                                                          Decided on:     27.10.2021

Jarnail Singh aged 56 years son of Mewa Singh resident of village Falound Khurd, Tehsil Malerkotla, post office Bhogiwal, District Sangrur pin Code-148023.

                                                …. Complainant.      

                                         Versus

H.D.F.C. Bank Branch Malerkotla through its Branch Manager, Malerkotla pin Code 148023

        ….Opposite party.

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:     Shri Manpreet Singh Advocate                          

FOR OPP. PARTY              :      Shri S.S.Punia, Advocate         

Quorum

                S.P.Sood, President

                V.K.Gulati, Member   

                   Sarita Garg, Member

ORDER By:      

        S.P.Sood, President

1.             Complainant Jarnail Singh has filed this complaint alleging inter-alia that he has been maintaining a savings bank account bearing number 50100038449410 with opposite party  namely H.D.F.C Bank, Branch Malerkotla and he has been carrying out his financial transactions through this account.  Further  the complainant has alleged that  on 08.10.2018 he  presented  a cheque worth Rs.1,10,000/-  for collection of its proceeds  and  retained counter foil of the voucher submitted with the  cheque in question. Further complainant has alleged that normally proceeds of the cheque is being collected within a week  but somehow or the other when he did not hear anything regarding the said cheque having been presented  and amount being not credited to his account then he approached the opposite party and enquired about the status of the cheque but initially the official of the opposite party kept on putting off the matter on one pretext or the other, however when  the complainant raised this issue before  the opposite party through an e-mail and also wanted to know about its status then the opposite party responded with a vague reply through e-mail and disclosed that the said cheque has been dispatched through On Dot Courier on 08.10.2018 but to his utter surprise the complainant had never received  above said cheque whatsoever. Even thereafter  the complainant approached the concerned official of the Opposite party on numerous occasions but to no avail. This is how when the complainant having submitted the above stated cheque way back on 08.10.2018 and  neither his account has been credited nor any such information has been imparted to him, so faced with this situation the complainant had no other option  except to file  this complaint seeking directions to the opposite party to either return the original  disputed cheque or in the alternative  to credit a sum of Rs.1,10,000/-  into his account along with interest to be charged @ 18% per annum. Along with these the complainant  has also sought a payment of Rs.50000/-  on account of harassment  and another sum of Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses.

2.             Upon being served Manager of the opposite party appeared in the Commission and contested this complaint being  bad for non-joining of necessary parties. Further the complainant was also stated to have no locus standi and cause of action to file the present complaint vide which the opposite party has been unnecessarily dragged into uncalled for litigation. Even the complainant has also concealed the material facts from this Commission.  Besides these legal objections the opposite party alleged that though the cheque in question as alleged by the complainant  was duly received for collection of its proceeds but somehow or the other the cheque in question was returned unpaid. After this development said cheque along with cheque returning memo  were duly dispatched for the complainant through On Dot Courier service and an intimation of this development was also sent to the complainant  through  his e-mail address. Besides this other averments of the complaint were also denied  and in the end after asserting that since the cheque in question stood dishonoured and same was duly sent back to the complainant  therefore  the question of any lapse on the part of the opposite party does not arise, and ultimately prayer for dismissal of this complaint was  made.

3.             After completion of the pleadings, both the parties were called upon to lead their evidence in support of their contentions. During this process the complainant has tendered his sworn affidavit Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-5, photocopy of front page of passbook Ex.C-2, photocopy of  counter foil of the voucher retained by him Ex.C-3, copy of the reply of the opposite party in response  to the communication sent by the complainant through e-mail Ex.C-4 and closed his evidence vide statement of his counsel Shri  Manpreet Singh. Thereafter  learned counsel for the opposite party  relied upon sworn affidavit of Shri Mehul Singla, Relationship Manager of H.D.F.C. Bank Limited Branch Malerkotla Ex.OP-1 and closed its evidence.

4.             We have heard the contentions put forth by the learned counsels for the parties and have also gone through various documents with their valuable assistance.

5.               At the very outset, it is significant  to note that neither the complainant nor the concerned official of the opposite party can said to be above board in their behavior and conduct  so far as  this episode of presenting  the cheque in question and collection of its proceeds with the opposite party where  he maintains his account, is concerned. If we minutely look into the record, we find that the complainant  has not at all  disclosed any detail of the cheque in question  as to who  had issued it in his favour and  on which branch of the which banker the same was drawn. Further, it is also quite  surprising that after the complainant had  learnt about the factum of official of the opposite party having  dispatched the original cheque  along with memo to the complainant  after the same was dishonoured and returned unpaid  through On Dot Courier  service, why he did not  implead this courier as an opposite party in this case. In case the complainant would have impleaded this courier  service then at least it was possible for this Commission to have gone into its stand  as to the fate  of the original cheque along with  cheque  returning memo. Even in that eventuality the truth regarding the stand adopted by the opposite party in this case regarding the said dishonoured cheque along with its memo being dispatched and sent back to the complainant could have been ascertained. But as we see, for want of the above said  courier service  before us, nothing in this regard could be concluded and  the responsibility for this lapse can  squarely be attributed to the negligence of the complainant in this case.  In the same context, if we refer to Ex.C-3 no head and tail could be made out to ascertain on which banker  the original cheque was actually drawn  and to whom of the official of the opposite party the same was handed over  when it was presented for collection of its proceeds. If the concerned official of the opposite party could have been made to write his signature along with seal  of the opposite party bank,  then of course,  he or she could have easily been held  responsible for mishandling the said cheque.

6.             Now coming over the lapses of the opposite party it is quite surprising as to how the opposite party could shirk of its duty for not ensuring that the original cheque in favour of complainant which was presented with them for collection of its proceeds could not reach back to the hands of its beneficiary. No doubt there has been categorical admission on the part of the OPs that the complainant is maintaining a savings bank account and on 08.10.2018 the cheque  in question was  duly presented with them. If this was the situation and added thereto if the said cheque was dishonoured or was returned unpaid then why the opposite party could not hand it over this valuable documents back to the complainant.  Even if the above said cheque  along with memo was dispatched through On Dot courier service on  08.10.2018  itself as  alleged by the opposite party then what was the hitch on their part to place on record the receipt issued in its favour by the courier people. Why this receipt or connected statement prepared by the courier service  could not be brought on record which creates a doubt  as to whether any such thing was actually done by the OP or not ? As a result the complainant ended up what to talk if getting the amount of Rs.1,10,000/-  equivalent to worth of disputed cheque but he was also not given back of the disputed cheque in original with which he could confront the issuing party about the fate thereof. So weighing  the lapses committed by the complainant vis a vis that of the opposite party we are of the affirmed view that the complainant deserves to be compensated by the opposite party to the extent  of  Rs.6000/- on account of having faced mental agony and harassment and another sum of Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses both to be borne by the opposite party which was clearly found to be deficient in its service towards the complainant who is found to be its consumer. So this complaint is partly allowed and party rejected.

7.             This order be complied with by the opposite parties within 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. A certified copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost as per rules. File be consigned to records.

                        Announced.

                        October 27, 2021

        (Sarita Garg)    (Vinod Kumar Gulati)      ( S.P.Sood )

           Member                   Member                   President