Delhi

West Delhi

CC/14/858

Mangat Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI Bank - Opp.Party(s)

21 Nov 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-III WEST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

C-150-151, COMMUNITY CENTRE, JANAKPURI

NEW DELHI-110058

 

C.C. NO. 858/2014

 

IN THE MATTER OF:

Mangat Ram                                                                                          

R/o 1A/3, Sainik Enclave,

Sector 2, Mohan Gardn,

New Dlhi-110059                                                               ...COMPLAINANT

 

VERSUS

 

ICICI BANK LTD.                                                                                                               Through its Branch Manager,

Kamal Model Senior Secondary School,

Mohan Garden, K-1 Extension,

Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-110059                                        ...OPPOSITE PARTY

 

 

	DATE OF INSTITUTION:    JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:               DATE OF DECISION:	23.12.2014 31.10.2022  21.11.2022

CORAM

 

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, President

Ms. Richa Jindal, Member

Mr. Anil Kumar Koushal, Member

Present: Mr.Upendra Singh, counsel for the  complainant

                None for OP.

 

 

 

 

ORDER

Per: Mr. Anil Kumar Koushal, Member

 

Brief facts leading to filing of the present complaint are as under:

1. Complainant states that he is maintaining a Bank Account bearing No.663201421072 with the OP Bank. On 30.05.2014, the complainant had deposited two cheques, one bearing No.019157 dated 30.05.2014 in the sum of Rs.4 lakhs drawn on State Bank of India, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi and another cheque bearing No.000065 dated 30.05.2014 for a sum of Rs.5 lakhs, drawn on  Bank of India, Dwarka, New Delhi, with the  OP Bank for encashment.  After receiving  intimation from the  OP Bank  about dishonouring of the above mentioned  cheques, the complainant  since second week of June, 2014 is continuously approaching the OP to return the above mentioned  original cheques but  neither the said cheques  have been encashed nor returned to the complainant with any memo remark till date.
2. It is the submission of the complainant  that had the two cheques in  question been returned  to the complainant by the OP Bank with its report, he would have instituted proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act as well as proceedings under Order 37, CPC against the drawer of the said cheques namely Ananta Barik  for recovery of the cheques amount and obtained compensation from the concerned Court of Law. This way the OP has deprived him of exhausting his legal remedy against the drawer of cheques.
3. According to the complainant, since the OP has not discharged its duty and responsibility  with prudence, care and precaution,  this amounts to deficiency in service and has caused grave financial hardship, mental torture, agony etc. to the complainant.   For redressal of his grievance, the complainant even sent legal notice dated 12.09.2014 to the OP seeking explanation for their misconduct and negligence but even  that has not been replied to by the OP.
4. By way of present complaint, the following reliefs are sought by the complainant:   

1. To direct the OP to return the cheque  bearing No.019157 dated 30.05.2014 in the sum of Rs.4 lakhs drawn on State Bank of India, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi and another cheque bearing No.000065 dated 30.05.2014 for a sum of Rs.5 lakhs, drawn on  Bank of India, Dwarka, New Delhi  or in the alternative, to pay  a sum of Rs.9 lakhs along with interest @ 18% p.a. from 05.06.2014 till actual payment thereof.
2. To award damages in the sum of Rs.1 lakh on account of financial loss and damages suffered by the complainant.
3. To award Rs.55,000/- as legal expenses to the complainant.

5. Along with the complaint, the complainant has attached copy of his Voter ID, copy of his bank passbook, copies of stubs of the deposit slips  in relation to two cheques in the sum of Rs.4 lakhs and Rs.5 lakhs deposited by the complainant with the OP Bank.
6. Upon notice being issued to OP on 24.12.2014, reply was filed by the OP wherein it submitted that the  complaint is not maintainable  as the complainant has not raised the ground of deficiency against it  and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.  OP submitted that the cheques submitted  for clearance by the complainant were dishonoured and the same was informed to the complainant.  The said dishonoured cheques  along with return memo were duly returned to the complainant through courier to the registered address of the complainant which was duly delivered.  Therefore, no purpose would be served by putting the blame  of negligence on the OP. OP submitted that the complainant himself is negligent in keeping in safe custody the cheques  which were dishonoured and  accordingly returned to the complainant through courier.  If any loss has been suffered by the complainant for his own negligence, the OP is not liable for the same. 
7. OP  contended that  it is not the fault of OP  if the complainant could not file the case under NI Act for the dishonoured cheques. Since the complainant has not acted in a prudent manner due to his own negligent act in not  taking the legal remedy for the dishonoured cheques, the complainant is now shifting the blame on the OP and trying  to wrongfully enrich himself.   It is submitted by the OP that  the complainant cannot raise his finger against the OP as he himself is at fault  especially when the OP had offered him all possible help when  it was brought to its notice that the said original cheques along with return memo had been misplaced by the complainant.  Therefore, the OP is not liable to compensate the complainant  in any manner whatsoever.
8. Along with its reply, OP placed on record, scanned copies of the two cheques in the sum of Rs.4 lakhs and 5 lakhs as also copies of return memos, showing the dishonouring of the two cheques in question.
9. In rebuttal, complainant filed  rejoinder  whereby he denied in toto the contentions of OP taken in its reply as false and  frivolous.  The complainant reiterated that the cheques in question were not returned/delivered  to him by the OP despite several visits. Complainant submitted that the OP vide its two letters, both dated 28.08.2014 in relation to two different  cheques, addressed to him had admitted  its mistake and apologized to the complainant that “we regret to inform you that  despite of earnest efforts, the courier agency is unable to trace the above mentioned cheque consignment.”  Complainant submitted that just because of apology tendered by the OP, the loss suffered by the complainant cannot be compensated.  It is contended by the complainant that based on the categorical admission on the part of OP in their two letters, the OP is liable to pay the loss caused to the complainant.
10. Complainant submitted that  the OP in order to prove the  delivery of the said two dishonoured cheques to him through courier has not filed or submitted any document on record.  It was submitted by the complainant that the prayers made by him in the complaint be acceded to by this Commission.
11. Complainant filed along with the rejoinder, copies of two letters dated 28.08.2014 written by the OP to the complainant thereby regretting the lapse on the part of courier agency. 
12. Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by the complainant and he exhibited the documents filed on record as Ex. C.W.1/1 to C.W.1/8.  OP also filed evidence by way of affidavit and  exhibited the documents filed on record as Ex. R.1/1 to R1/2.
13. Written arguments were filed by the complainant and OP respectively on record.  Oral arguments were heard on 31.10.2022.
14. During oral arguments, Mr.Upinder Singh, counsel for the complainant  submitted that there is apparent deficiency on the part of OP in not delivering the two  dishnoured cheques in the sum of Rs.4 lakhs and 5 lakhs respectively to the complainant because of which he could not  initiate legal proceedings  under  Section 138 of the NI Act and  under  Order 37, CPC for summary proceedings.  Despite dishonor of the two cheques, the amount of Rs.9 lakhs has till date not been  paid by the drawer of the cheque to him as the drawer is insisting for firstly return of the  original cheques to him.  It was further argued by  the counsel for complainant that on the one hand the OP averred in their reply that the cancelled cheques along with the return memo have been duly delivered  back to the complainant and on the other hand vide their own two letters dated 28.08.2014, the OP has itself admitted that  despite their earnest efforts, the courier agency could not  locate the dishonoured cheques in question.  The two  contradictory stands of OP itself  prove deficiency and negligence on their part. At this stage  we may note down the relevant part of the letters dated 28.08.2014 written by the OP to complainant in relation to two different cheques as under:

“ We regret to inform you that despiteof earnest efforts, the courier agency is unable to trace the above mentioned cheque consignment.

We, therefore, request you to immediately contact the drawer of the cheque to give stop payment instruction to the drawee bank for the referred cheque.

We apologize for theinconvenience caused to you as a consequence of our error.Any incidental expense by you or the drawer in connection with the loss of cheque will be reimbursed by us.”

                                                                   (emphasis added)  

The above two letters dated 28.08.2014 written by the OP to the complainant clearly reflect the deficiency and negligence on the part of OP. The OP has gone to the extent of conceding  that they are ready to pay any incidental expense incurred by the complainant or the drawer for the loss of cheques in question.  If that had been the case, the OP should have compensated the complainant suitably instead of forcing the complainant to file the present complaint and dragging the issue for eight years.   This amounts to unfair trade practice also as on the one hand in the reply to the complaint, the OP denies the allegation of  complainant that the cancelled cheques have not been given back to him and on the other hand admits its mistake in the letter dated 28.08.2014 and also ready to  compensate the complainant for any incidental loss suffered by him.

15. We  also find from the record a letter dated October 22,2014 which is a reply  by the OP in response to the legal notice dated 12.09.2014 issued by the complainant.  The same does not find mention in any of the pleadings filed by either side in the present proceedings.  Be that as it may, even in the reply to the legal notice also, the OP has conceded its fault in not being able to locate the dishonoured cheques sent through courier.  In any case the amount  of the two cheques amounting to Rs.9 lakhs is not lying with the OP as it has clearly mentioned that the said cheques were dishonoured as the account of the drawer was found to be closed.
16.  For the foregoing reasons, we  allow the complaint and hold the OP guilty of deficiency in service, negligence and unfair trade practice that despite admitting their mistake, the complainant was forced to file the present complaint.  The OP is directed to pay  to the complainant a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation for the mental agony, harassment faced by him all these eight years.  As regards the amount of the dishonoured cheques, the complainant  is free to take recourse to legal action as advised, to recover the amount of Rs.9 lakhs from the drawer of the two cheques.   OP shall comply with this order within thirty days of receipt of copy of this Order.

A copy of this order shall be supplied free of cost to parties to the dispute in the present complaint,upon a written requisition being made in writingin the name of President of the Commission in terms of Regulation 21 of the ConsumerProtection Regulations, 2020.

File be consigned to record room.

 

(Richa Jindal)                                      (Anil Kumar Koushal)                   (Sonica Mehrotra)

   Member                                           Member                                 President