DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA(PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> <br /> C.C.No.10 of 10.01.2007<br /> Decided on : 05.04.2007 <br /> <br /> Kulwant Singh S/o Sh. Jit Singh, R/o House No.19996, Street No. 8, Sahibjada Jujhar Singh Nagar, Bathinda.<br /> ...... Complainant<br /> <br /> Versus. <br /> <br /> 1.ICICI Bank, Corporate Office : ICICI Towers, IInd Floor, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bhandra (E), Mumbai-400 051, Registered Office; Land mark, Race Course Circle, Vadodara-390 007, India through its Managing Director.<br /> 2.ICICI Bank Limited, Regional Processing Centre, SCO 21-22, Phase-7, Mohali through its Regional Manager.<br /> 3.ICICI Bank Limited, Guru Kanshi Marg, near Hanuman Chowk, Bathinda through its Manager.<br /> 4.ICICI Bank Limited, Cantt. Branch, Bathinda through its Manager.<br /> 5.Punjab & Sind Bank, Branch Office, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh through its Manager. <br /> ...... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986<br /> <br /> QUORUM:<br /> <br /> Sh.Lakhbir Singh, President<br /> Sh.Hira Lal Kumar, Member<br /> Dr.Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the complainant : Sh. M.R.Gupta, Advocate<br /> For the opposite parties : Sh. Sanjay Goyal, counsel for opposite parties No.1 to 4<br /> Opposite party No.5 exparte <br /> <br /> O R D E R.<br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT:-<br /> 1. Complainant had applied for plots to the Haryana Urban Development Authority (Here-in-after referred to as HUDA). Requisite amount was deposited. No plot was allotted. Amount deposited by him was refunded by HUDA through cheques of Punjab & Sind Bank bearing Nos.048371 & 122776 dated 20.9.2006 each amounting to Rs.74,595/-. Complainant is having bank account No.525453 with opposite party No.3. He had deposited cheque No.048371 on 10.10.2006 with opposite party No.4 for crediting the amount in his account. Similarly, cheque No. 122776 was deposited on 28.10.2006 with opposite party No.3. Till 29.11.2006, amount of the cheques was not credited in his account. He approached opposite party No. 4 for crediting the amount of the cheques. Inquiries were made from opposite party No.4. He was told that cheques were lying with opposite party No.3. Opposite party No.3 was contacted which instead of crediting the amount of the cheques in his account, returned them with the direction that his name was written as Kulwant Singh Sidhu on them instead of Kulwant Singh. He was further directed to file an affidavit that the name mentioned in the cheques relates to him and that he would be responsible for any claim against the cheques. On 30.11.2006, cheques alongwith affidavit were submitted with opposite party No.3 for crediting the amount in his account. Despite this, amount has not been credited in his account todate. On 26.12.2006, opposite party No.3 was contacted. Proper reply was not given. Again on 8.1.2007, opposite party No.3 was approached. He was told that cheques were returned to him, although they were not received by then. Opposite party No.1 is the Head Office of opposite parties No. 2 to 4 which are holding business of banking. He alleges deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties as well as mental shock, agony, financial loss and harassment on their part. In these circumstances, complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as the Act) has been preferred by him seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite parties that the amount of cheques be got credited in his bank account alongwith interest @ 12% P.A and he be allowed compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- alongwith costs and litigation expenses.<br /> 2. Opposite parties No. 1 to 4 filed reply of the complaint taking legal objections that complaint is not maintainable against them and it is based on false facts. On merits, they admit that opposite party No.1 is the Head Office, whereas opposite party No.2 is its Regional Office and opposite parties No.3 & 4 are its branches. They do not deny the fact of account No.525453 with opposite party No.3. They admit that the cheques in question were deposited by the complainant on 10.10.2006 and 28.10.2006 respectively. Inter-alia, their plea is that the name on the cheques written was Kulwant Singh Sidhu. No parentage was written. Account of the complainant is with the name of Kulwant Singh only. In order to avoid any type of fraud which may be committed, complainant was directed to file affidavit with regard to name mentioned in the cheques. Affidavit was not filed. They deny that affidavit alongwith cheques was submitted on 30.11.2006. It is further averred by them that after the expiry of the date of validity of the cheques, complainant had deposited them alongwith the affidavit in the box of opposite party No.3. Cheques were dated 20.9.2006. They could be cleared only upto 20.12.2006. Credit of the cheques could not be given as cheques were time barred as in them it was clearly mentioned “valid for three months”. They refute the remaining averments in the complaint.<br /> 3. Registered A.D post notice was issued to opposite party No. 5 on 16.01.2007. Neither the registered cover nor A.D was received till 19.2.2007. It was deemed to be valid service. No-one came present on its behalf. Accordingly, it has been proceeded against exparte.<br /> 4. In support of his allegations and averments in the complaint, Kulwant Singh complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavits(Ex.C.1 & Ex.C.10), photocopy of his affidavit dated 30.11.2006 (Ex.C.9), photocopies of cheques (Ex.C.2 & Ex.C.3), photocopies of Counter Folios of Pay-in-Slips (Ex.C.4, Ex.C.5 & Ex.C.8), photocopies of letters dated 14.10.2006 & 4.11.2006 (Ex.C.6 & Ex.C.7), photocopy of return memo dated 29.1.2007 (Ex.C.11) and photocopy of envelope (Ex.C.12).<br /> 5. On behalf of opposite parties No.1 to 4, reliance has been placed on affidavit (Ex.R.1) of Sh. Baldev Virdi, its Branch Manager. <br /> 6. Some facts become undisputed. They are that cheques Nos.048371 and 122776 dated 20.9.2006, copies of which are Ex.C.2 & Ex.C.3, were deposited by the complainant with opposite parties No. 4 & 3 on 10.10.2006 and 28.10.2006 respectively. The amount of them could not be credited in account No.525453 of the complainant with opposite party No.3. Cheques were returned to the complainant by the opposite-bank with direction to file affidavit with regard to the name mentioned in them. Complainant filed this complaint on 10.01.2007. Cheques have been returned to the complainant with memo dated 29.1.2007, copy of which is Ex.C.11, on the ground that they were out of date i.e. date of their validity has expired.<br /> 7. Arguments pressed into evidence by the learned counsel for the complainant are that cheques in question were deposited with opposite parties No. 4 & 3 on 10.10.2006 & 28.10.2006 respectively, but till 29.11.2006, the amount was not credited in the account of the complainant. Thereafter, complainant had approached opposite parties No. 4 & 3 respectively and cheques were returned with direction that his name was written as Kulwant Singh Sidhu instead of Kulwant Singh and that he should file an affidavit with regard to the name mentioned in the cheques and concerning his responsibility for any claim against the cheques. Learned counsel for the complainant further argued that on 30.11.2006 complainant had again submitted the cheques alongwith the affidavit, but opposite parties No. 1 to 4 did not credit the amount in the account of the complainant. Complainant had again approached opposite party No.3 on 8.1.2007 and he was told that cheques in question were returned to him, although they were not received by him till the date of filing the complaint. According to the learned counsel for the complainant, there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties No. 1 to 4. <br /> 8. Learned counsel for opposite parties No.1 to 4 urged that the name on the cheques in question was Kulwant Singh Sidhu. No parentage was written on them. Account of the complainant is in the name of Kulwant Singh only and as such, ICICI Bank which is a reputed one, directed the complainant to file affidavit with regard to the name so that any type of fraud might be avoided. After the expiry of the validity of the date of cheques, complainant had deposited cheques alongwith affidavit in the box of opposite party No.3. Cheques were dated 20.9.2006 and as such, they could be cleared only till 20.12.2006. Hence, credit of the cheques could not be given to the complainant. His next submission is that time barred cheques were returned alongwith the affidavit.<br /> 9. We have considered respective arguments. Bank charges commission for getting the clearance of the cheques. Hence, relationship of consumer and provider of service exists between the bank and the complainant as has been held in the case of Canara Bank Vs. Ram Singh Jaiswal & Ors.-II(2005)CPJ-51. <br /> 10. Complainant has supported his version in the complaint in his affidavits Ex.C.1 and Ex.C.10. Opposite parties No. 1 to 4 do not deny the deposit of the cheques by the complainant on 10.10.2006 and 28.10.2006 specifically. Similarly, there is no specific denial in the affidavit Ex.R.1 of Sh. Baldev Virdi that till 29.11.2006 the amount of the cheques was not credited in the account of the complainant. These opposite parties No. 1 to 4 do not specifically deny the version of the complainant in para No. 6 of the complaint regarding the fact that he had contacted opposite parties No. 4 & 3 concerning the amount of the cheques. According to Ex.R.1, name of the complainant on the cheques was written as Kulwant Singh Sidhu, whereas his account is in the name of Kulwant Singh only. Accordingly, cheques were returned with direction to file affidavit with regard to the name mentioned in the cheques. In the reply of the complaint submitted by opposite parties No. 1 to 4 and the affidavit Ex.R.1, plea taken is that after the expiry of the validity period of the cheques, they were submitted alongwith affidavit in the box of opposite party No.3, whereas stance of the complainant is that cheques were deposited on 30.11.2006 alongwith the affidavit. Question which arises for determination is which of these two versions is correct. On the basis of the evidence on the record, we have no hesitation in agreeing with the plea of the complainant on this aspect of the matter. Ex.C.8 is the copy of the Pay-in-Slip dated 30.11.2006 of ICICI Bank according to which cheques were deposited in account No. 525453. Contention of the learned counsel for opposite parties No. 1 to 4 that on 30.11.2006 simply cheques were deposited and not the affidavit cuts no ice as there is no pleading of the opposite parties No. 1 to 4 to this effect. Complainant got his affidavit attested on 30.11.2006 and copy of the same is Ex.C.9. When his attested affidavit on 30.11.2006 was ready, there was no obstacle before the complainant in not submitting the affidavit alongwith the cheques through Pay-in-Slip, copy of which is Ex.C.8, particularly when direction was given by the opposite Bank to submit the affidavit regarding his name on the cheques. It does not sound to reason that on 30.11.2006 complainant could deposit the cheques only without affidavit especially when direction to him was to make his position clear about the name on the cheques through affidavit. In other words, question of depositing the cheques only on 30.11.2006 by the complainant without affidavit, did not arise. Even if it is taken for arguments sake, although we do not subscribe to it that simply cheques were deposited with ICICI Bank on 30.11.2006 without affidavit, opposite parties No. 1 to 4 could return them immediately by saying that affidavit was not attached with them as per previous direction. Ex.C.8 belies the story of opposite parties No. 1 to 4 that cheques and affidavit were submitted after the expiry f the validity period of the cheques which was upto 20.12.2006. They did not muster courage to mention the date on which cheques alongwith affidavit were deposited. Affidavit Ex.R.1 is dated 16.3.2007. In this document as well as in the reply of the complaint, opposite parties do not state as to what was done after the cheques and the affidavit were deposited. When affidavit dated 30.11.2006 was ready with the complainant and it was got attested by him from the competent authority, there could be no hurdle before him to wait till the expiry of the validity dates of the cheques. Hence, crux of the matter is that story of opposite parties No. 1 to 4 that cheques were submitted after the expiry of the validity date alongwith affidavit, is unfounded and baseless. Rather, the conclusion which on the basis of the evidence is arrived at is that cheques were submitted on 30.11.2006 when their validity period had not expired. Concerned officials of ICICI Bank retained the cheques and affidavit and returned them during the pendency of the complaint i.e. on 29.01.2007 as is evident from Ex.C.11 with remarks “out of date”. Instead of getting the cheques cleared during their validity after 30.11.2006, they were kept without any rhyme and reason and were returned on 29.01.2007. All this amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties No. 1 to 4.<br /> 11. Now question arises as to which relief should be accorded to the complainant. Cheques were valid till 20.12.2006. Officials of opposite parties No. 1 to 4 retained them and made no efforts to get them cleared and to credit the amount in the account of the complainant till 20.12.2006. Had the cheques been got cleared and amount credited in the account of the complainant within the validity period, he could earn interest. Had the cheques been returned with solid reasons immediately after 20.12.2006, he could get them revalidated and could get the payment. In these circumstances, complainant is certainly entitled to interest on the amount of these two cheques @ 9% P.A. from 30.11.2006 till 29.01.2007. Complainant is craving for compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for mental torture, agony, financial loss and harassment. In our view, complainant is certainly entitled to some compensation on this count. Due to the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties No. 1 to 4, complainant could not get his amount well in time. Opposite parties No. 1 to 4 made the validity date of the cheques to expire. Cheques are of Punjab & Sind Bank, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh. For revalidation, complainant would have to approach opposite party No.5. Revalidation may take time for which complainant would be deprived of the amount of interest on the amount of cheques. After revalidation under the rules, he would have to deposit them in his account for clearance for getting amount credited. Complainant has undergone mental agony, financial loss and he would have to undergo further harassment during the process of revalidation etc. For all this, he deserves some compensation which we assess as Rs.5,000/- keeping in view the authority J.Radhakrishnan Vs. A Basheera & Another-2001(2)CLT-225(M.P.) wherein it has been held that award of compensation always involves some sort of speculation and it is very difficult to quantify the amount of compensation on a rationale basis.<br /> 12. In view of our foregoing discussion, complaint is accepted against opposite parties No. 1 to 4 with costs of Rs.1,000/-. Complaint qua opposite party No. 5 stands dismissed. Opposite parties No. 1 to 4 are directed to do as under:-<br /> ( i ) Pay interest @ 9% P.A. on Rs.1,49,190/- (amount of two cheques, copies of which are Ex.C.2 & Ex.C.3) from 30.11.2006 till 29.01.2007.<br /> ( ii ) Pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant as compensation under section 14 (1)(d) of the Act.<br /> ( iii ) Compliance regarding payment of costs and compensation be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the amount of compensation would carry interest @ 9% P.A. till payment.<br /> 13. Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost. File be also consigned. <br /> <br /> Pronounced (Lakhbir Singh)<br /> 05.04.2007 President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Hira Lal Kumar)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr.Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member <br /> <br /> 'bsg'