BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 60 of 2011
Date of Institution : 8.3.2011
Date of decision : 3.8.2016
Subhash Chander, aged about 60 years son of Sh.Ram Swaroop, r/o shop no.160, New Anaj Mandi, Sirsa being proprietor of M/s Subhash Industries, Shop no.20, 1-Additional Mandi, Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. HDFC Bank Ltd., Janta Bhawan Road, Sirsa through its Branch Manager.
2. HDFC Bank Ltd., Regional Office, HDFC Bank House, Senapati Bhapat Marg, Lower Parel (West) Mumbai-400 013 through its authorized signatory/Chairperson.
...…Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI S.B.LOHIA………………………………..PRESIDENT
SHRI RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL………. ……MEMBER.
Present: Sh.A.K.Monga Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Rishi Sharma Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
Case of the complainant, in brief, is that he is having an account bearing no.14132560000018 in the bank i.e. with op no.1 since long. On 4.2.2010, he had deposited a cheque bearing no.286201 dt. 22.7.2010 for an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- with op no.1 for its clearance. But after 2-3 days when the complainant inquired about the clearance of said cheque, then the officials of bank did not give any satisfactory reply and asked him to wait for 10 days more. After that, the complainant again visited the officials of bank, but they put off the matter on one pretext or the other. On 8.1.2011 the complainant requested op no.1 in writing and the Ops sent a letter with the information that the said cheque has been lost in transit by courier agency and FIR in this regard has been lodged. The complainant was asked by op no.1 to get issued a fresh cheque in place of said lost cheque from the concerned party i.e. Haryana Suraj Malting Ltd.. The complainant has no concern or connection with any courier agency through which the said cheque has been transited. Moreover, the op no.1 has also threatened that his account will be closed. Hence, the present complaint claiming the said cheque amount with upto date interest besides compensation for harassment, humiliation, mental tension etc and litigation expenses etc.
2. Opposing the case of the complainant, it is admitted by the opposite parties that the complainant deposited the cheque in question drawn on State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur for collection of amount and crediting the amount in his Saving Bank account. After receipt, the said cheque was sent for clearance to the drawee through Trackon Couriers Pvt. Limited, Sirsa Branch at Delhi, but the said Courier company lost the said cheque during transit. This fact was intimated to Ops by said Courier company and it was informed that a FIR has been lodged in this regard and the Op no.1 duly intimated this fact to the complainant. Thus, it is the Courier company which is responsible for misplacing of said cheque and said Courier company is a proper and necessary party but the same has not been made party to this complaint. Remaining averments of the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. In order to make out his case, the complainant has placed on record Ex.C1-his own supporting affidavit, Ex.C2-complaint of cheque deposited, Ex.C3-information given by ops regarding lost of cheque, Ex.C4-legal notice, Ex.C5-postal receipt, Ex.C6 to Ex.C8-acknowledgements; Ex.C8-copies of orders dt. 9.1.2014 and 20.1.2014 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sirsa. Whereas opposite parties have placed on record Ex.RW1/A-supporting affidavit of Sh.Navneet Kamboj, its Branch Manager, Ex.R2-receipt of Trackon Courier Company, Ex.R2-copy of FIR; Ex.R3 and Ex.R5-correspondence between Ops and courier company, Ex.R4-reply to legal notice and Ex.R6-statement of account of complainant.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case carefully.
5. Learned counsel for complainant argued that the person who issued cheque to the complainant has been declared proclaimed offender and there is no chance to get another duplicate cheque from him. In these circumstances, payment of cheque should be given by the opposite parties-bank. On the other hand, ld. counsel for opposite parties argued that the opposite parties-bank was only an agent to send to the cheque through courier for clearance and in these circumstances, they are not liable for payment of the amount mentioned in cheque. They are taking action against courier company.
6. It is admitted fact that the cheque in question was lost when it was sent through courier by the opposite parties-bank for clearance. It is not the case of the complainant that some other person received the amount of the cheque by misusing it. In our view, complainant is still entitled to recover the amount of the cheque from the concerned person, who issued the earlier cheque. However, keeping in mind the circumstances that ops were duty bound to collect the amount of the cheque and the complainant is suffering unnecessarily without any fault of him since the year 2010, we are of the view that it will be justified if an amount of Rs.1 lac is awarded as compensation to the complainant for his sufferings and mental agony etc. We order accordingly. Both the Ops are directed to pay the amount of compensation jointly and severally within a period of one month from today, failing which the complainant would be entitled for interest @ 9% per annum on the amount of compensation from today till its realization. Ops are also directed to pay Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:3.8.2016. District Consumer Disputes
Member. Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
