Haryana

StateCommission

A/981/2014

Union Bank of India through its Chief Manager - Complainant(s)

Versus

Karambir Singh - Opp.Party(s)

23 Aug 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

                                                        First Appeal No.981 of 2014

Date of Institution: 29.10.2014                                                              Date of Decision: 23.08.2016

 

Union Bank of India through its Chief Manager, Main Branch, G.T. Road, Panipat.

…..Appellant

Versus

Karambir Singh S/o Sh. Giani Ram, R/o H.No.114/21, Shiv Nagar,Behind Gandhi Mandi, Panipat Distt. Panipat.

                                      …..Respondent

CORAM:             Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.

                             Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                                                                                                                        

Present:               None  for the appellant.

Shri Amrinder Singh proxy counsel for Mr.R.K.Chaudhary, Advocate counsel for the respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

It was alleged by the complainant that he issued post dated cheque bearing No.554854 dated 10.06.2011 for Rs.2,50,000/- in the name of one Satyawan which was pertaining to his saving bank account No.56818 with opposite party (O.P.) No.1.  He asked O.Ps. to stop payment of that cheque vide notice which was received by it on 06.06.2011, but, O.P.No.2 informed vide reference No.RKBV606-11 dated 07.06.2011 that the cheque was already cleared by their Bhopra (Samalakha) Branch. Despite his directions O.Ps. made the payment and it amounts to deficiency in service, so they be directed to pay the aforesaid amount besides compensation for harassment etc.

2.      O.ps. alleged that the cheque in question was encashed on 25.05.2011 and this fact was to the notice of the complainant and thereafter he issued notice dated 06.06.2011.  The cheque was presented by Satyawan before State Bank of Patiala and was encashed through clearing system, so he was not entitled for any compensation.

3.      After hearing both the parties, learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panipat (In short “District Forum”) allowed the complaint vide impugned order dated 04.08.2014 and directed as under:-

“In view of above discussion, the present complaint succeeds. We hereby allow the present complaint with a direction to opposite parties to refund Rs.2,50,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till its realization to the complainant.  We further direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.20,000/- to the complainant for monetary loss, harassment and deficiency in service etc. Cost of litigation quantified at Rs.2200/- is also allowed to be paid by opposite parties to the complainant.”

4.      Feeling aggrieved from that order, O.Ps. have preferred this appeal. 

5.      Despite adjournment time and again nobody has appeared on behalf of appellant.  This appeal is pending since the year 2014 and we are left with no other alternative except to decide this appeal.  In the absence of the appellant. Arguments of learned counsel for the respondent are heard. File perused.

6.      The O.P. has no where alleged that the cheque in question was not post dated. As per averments of the complainant it was to be encashed on 10.06.2011, whereas the O.P. cleared this cheque on 25.05.2011 before 10.06.2011. Notice was received by O.Ps. on 06.06.2011 and they were not supposed to clear the cheque.  Had it not been post dated then it could have been a different matter.  In this way, there was deficiency in service on the part of the appellant and it is liable to refund the amount of cheque and to pay compensation.  The findings of learned District Forum are well reasoned based on law and facts and cannot be disturbed. Resultantly, appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed.

7.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/-  deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.

 

August 23rd, 2016

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

S.K.