Haryana

Jind

CC/15/2014

Virender - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Sh B.S. Dhull

06 Sep 2016

ORDER

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JIND. 
                                           Complaint No. 15 of 2014
   Date of Institution: 18.2.2014
   Date of final order: 

Virender s/o Dalip Singh r/o H. No.295 Housing Board Colony, Jind, District Jind. 

                                                             ….Complainant.
                                       Versus
ICICI Bank through its Branch Manager, Jind, District Jind & having its Branch office HUDA Complex, Urban Estate, Jind.
Manager, Corporate Office, ICICI Bank Ltd. ICICI Bank Towers, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Mumbai. 
Manager, Registered Office, ICICI Bank Ltd. Land Mark Race-Course Circle Vadodra.
                                                          …..Opposite parties.
                          Complaint under section 12 of
              Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Before: Sh. Dina Nath Arora, President.
    Smt. Bimla Sheokand, Member.
            Sh. Mahinder Kumar Khurana, Member.    

Present:  Sh. B.S. Dhull Adv. for complainant.
          Sh. Satish Bhardwaj Adv. for opposite parties. 
              
                   
ORDER:

             The brief facts in the complaint are that complainant  is having saving bank account  No.050301501716 with the opposite parties. It is stated that on 17.10.2013 he has deposited a cheque No.0553507 amounting to Rs.9,70,000/- drawn on Axis Bank Ltd. Jind to the opposite party No.1 for clearance but the same was not cleared by the opposite parties nor the said cheque was returned to him. The complainant made repeated visits to the opposite parties but they avoided from one pretext or the other no reason for non-clearance of the cheque was disclosed to the complainant. The complainant has apprehension that you in connivance with one Ramesh Kumar who given the above said cheque to the complainant  to be deposited in the account of the complainant that the opposite parties might have destroyed or misappropriated the amount of Rs.9,70,000/- pertaining to the above said cheque. The complainant sent a legal notice dated 11.11.2013 upon the opposite parties  which was received by the opposite parties and in reply to said notice dated 6.12.2013 mentioning that “ the cheque No.0553507 for Rs.9,70,000/- drawn on Axis Bank which was deposited in  your aforesaid account had been returned on October, 19,2013 with the reason Insufficient funds”.  Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is alleged. It is prayed that the complaint be accepted and opposite parties be directed to   pay a sum of Rs. 9,70,000/- by clearing  the cheque in question along with interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of deposit of the cheque till its payment. 
2.    Upon notice, the opposite party No.1  has appeared and filed the   written statement stating in the preliminary objections i.e. the  complaint is not maintainable in the present forum and complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint. On merits, it is contended that the cheque No.0553507 for Rs.9,70,000/- drawn on Axis Bank was deposited in his saving account No.050301501716 being maintained at ICICI Bank Jind, Haryana Branch and had been returned on 19.10.2013 on account of insufficient funds. Due to inadvertence, the said cheque was not returned to the complainant despite due diligence and best efforts, the answering opposite party was unable to trace the said cheque at the branch and it seems to have lost in transit. The answering opposite party further requested the complainant to immediately contract the drawer of the cheque to issue “stop payment” instructions on the said cheque and obtain a new cheque in lieu thereof. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering  opposite party. Dismissal of complaint with costs is prayed for. 
3.    In evidence, the complainant has produced his own affidavit  Ex. C-1,  copy of   affidavit of complainant Ex. C-2, copy of legal notice dated 11.11.2013 Ex. C-3, postal receipts Ex. C-4 to Ex. C-6, deposit slip Ex. C-7, letter dated 6.12.2013 Ex. C-8 and acknowledgment Ex. C-9 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the opposite parties have produced the affidavit of Sh.  Deepau Gupta Ex. OP-1 and closed the evidence. 

 

 

 

 

 

4.    We have heard Ld. counsel of both the parties and also perused the record placed on file. Ld. counsel for complainant argued that complainant is having saving account number with opposite party No.1 and he had deposited a cheue No.000004 for Rs.1,00,000/- drawn on Bank of India  and issued by sh. Darshan Lal Batra r/o Jind but the above said cheque has been lost by the opposite parties and complainant is entitled of the above said cheque amount of Rs.1,00,000/- along with interest and prayed to allow the complaint. 
            Joginder Singh Vs. Manager PNB etc.
                       …4…    
5.    On the other hand, Counsel for opposite parties argued that as per pay in slip signed by the complainant it is the condition that the bank is authorized to send the cheque by ordinary/registered post/courier service/speed post and the bank will not be responsible for any loss or miscarriage of the cheque. Counsel for opposite party further argued that complainant well knew that amount of cheque was not in the account of Darshan Lal Batra  as earlier cheques were also bounced. He further argued that cheque has not been lost by the official of opposite party No.1  and same has been lost in the transit. So there is no negligence on the part of the opposite parties and prayed for dismissal of complaint. 
6.    After hearing Ld. counsel of both the parties, we have gone through the record placed on file. There is no dispute that complainant has presented the cheque No.000004 for Rs.1,00,000/- drawn on Bank of India issued by Darshan Lal r/o Jind with the opposite party No.1 Branch Kandela, District Jind. The opposite party No.1 sent the cheque to his main Branch Office, Jind. Accordingly main branch of Jind has sent the cheque for collection to Bank of India, Jind and same was return by the Bank of India to the opposite party No.1  with remarks “insufficient balance”  they further mentioned that  cheque has been lost in transit not received by us Vide  letter  dated 9.7.2012 issued by PNB Kandela Branch, District Jind.  But  there is no evidence on the record that whether the opposite parties have sent the memo of  remarks regarding insufficient fund issued by Bank of India as well as bounced cheque to the complainant through registered post 
            Joginder Singh Vs. Manager PNB etc.
                       …5…    
or courier nor any record of dispatch register from which they have sent the above said cheque. So the plea of the opposite parties that the cheque has been lost in transit is not acceptable meaning thereby the official of the opposite parties has lost the cheque in the office of the opposite parties. 
7.    In view of the above version of parties, it is clear that the cheque in question has been lost  in the office of opposite party No.1or2  but not lost in transit. When there is no dispute that cheque in question was presented in the  branch of PNB Kandela or same has been sent by the Kandela branch to their main branch of Jind and opposite party No.1 has sent the above said cheque for clearance in the Bank of India at Jind. It is not disputed that the present complaint has been filed on 12.11.2012 and complainant was very much knowledge that above said cheque has been lost and opposite party No.1 has written a letter to the complainant regarding misplace of cheque on 9.7.2012 vide Ex. C-3. The complainant can avail the remedy for filing the civil suit for recovery of the amount because party has timely informed that the cheque has been lost. For recovery of amount of cheque, the complaint would not lie under the Consumer Protection Act, the relief of the cheque amount cannot be given to the complainant in view of the case law titled State Bank of India Vs. Untha Lakshmi Kumari (2009) CPJ 198 (NC) in which it was held that cheque misued/encashed, not oved-Bank not liable to pay cheque amount-order of State Commission set de- Compensation for deficiency in vice on part of bank awarded. The other case 
            Joginder Singh Vs. Manager PNB etc.
                       …6…    
titled as Canara Bank Vs. Sudhir Ahuja 1 (2007) CPJ 1 (NC)  in which it was held that neither amount credited nor cheque returned-Deficiency in service proved-Bank liable to pay some amount of compensation and not entire amount of cheque-order of State Commission directing OP to pay entire cheque amount not legally sustainable-OP liable to pay Rs.5,000/- compensation. 
8.    In view of the above said discussion, it is proved that the official of the opposite parties are negligent and not performing their duty and they have lost the cheque in their Bank and great deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is proved. In view of the law discussed above (Supra), the complainant is entitled the compensation. The complaint is partly allowed  with cost and opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/-(Rs. twenty thousand only) as compensation to the complainant within 30 days  after receiving the certified copy of this order. We assessed Rs.3000/-(Rs. three thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant. Copies of order be supplied to the parties under the rule. File be consigned to the record-room after due compliance.
Announced on: 9.8.2016
                                              President,
       Member       Member                 District Consumer Disputes                                          Redressal Forum, Jind

 

 

           Joginder Singh Vs. Manager PNB etc.
                    

Present:  Sh. S.K. Garg Adv. for complainant.
          Sh. P.K. Gupta Adv. for opposite parties. 
              
              
             Arguments heard. To come up on 9.8.2016 for orders. 
                                      President,
        Member              Member         DCDRF, Jind
                                  8.8.2016
    
Present:  Sh. S.K. Garg Adv. for complainant.
          Sh. P.K. Gupta Adv. for opposite parties. 
              
                   
             Order announced. Vide our separate order of even date, the complaint is partly allowed. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.  
                                       President,
        Member              Member         DCDRF, Jind
                                  9.8.2016