2. The complainant in short filed a complaint that he has an account in the bank of O.P.Nos.1 and 2. He deposited cheque No.94910 of Rs.52,000/- to encash it. However inspite of repeated requests it was neither encashed nor he was told about the encashment of the cheque.
3. As the complainant needed money to pay his workers he had to take the loan to pay the workers. The O.P.No.1 after two years i.e. on 28/11/2011 informed him that the deposited cheque was lost. The complainant therefore sent a notice to O.P.No.1 on 19/12/2011 in reply of which the O.P.No.1 suggested the complainant to get the new cheque from the drawer and encash it.
4. The complainant therefore claiming deficiency on the part of O.P.Nos.1 and 2 for not informing him the loss of the cheques, claimed the cost of the cheque of Rs.52,000/- as compensation and Rs.30,000/- for physical and mental harassment and Rs.18,000/- for the cost of the complaint, totaling to Rs.1,00,000/- with interest @ 18% P.A. till final payment.
5. On notice the O.Ps. appeared and countered the complaint stating in brief that the complaint is time barred as is filed in the year 2012 when the complainant had deposited the cheque on 02/09/2009 gave a notice on 17/12/2011 and filed a complaint. The cheques, in dispute, was of the Vainganga Kshetriya Gramin Bank Mohadi which is not impleaded as a party in complaint. The O.P.No.1 claimed that the drawee bank and the complainant has conspired to cheat the O.P’s. The O.P’s. had informed the complainant about the loss of cheque in the transit on 15/01/2010 and many times thereafter. However the complainant requested that the letter given to him, was lost and hence the O.P.No.1 may provide him a new letter of the loss of the cheques. Hence a new letter was provided to him on 28/11/2011. The O.P’s. denied all allegations but accepted to have the account of the complainant and the depositing of the cheques. The O.P’s. also submitted that the complainant while depositing the cheque had put a wrong name of the village of the drowee bank .
6. The learned Forum below heard both the parties and held that the O.P. informed the loss of cheque after two years and made irrelevant and un called for statements in the reply to the notice given by the complainant. Hence the O.P’s. committed deficiency in service. Therefore passed the order as above.
7. Aggrieved against the order the O.P’s. filed this appeal and hence are referred as appellants. Advocate Shri V.L.Rajurkar appeared for the appellants. Advocate Shri Tijare appeared for the original complainant now referred as respondent.
8. The advocate for the appellants submitted that the respondent deposited the cheque in the year 2009, but filed the complaint in the year 2012 without bothering for the fate of the cheque. He was rightly informed immediately on 15/01/2010 orally that the cheque was lost in transit during shifting of record and the reminders were sent to drawee bank with no reply from them.
9. The advocate for the appellant’s further submitted that the respondent was asked to contact the drawer of the cheque and get the fresh cheque. However he did not do so. The advocate for the appellants submitted that the learned Forum did not appreciate the delay and also the fact that the respondent was quite likely to have received a fresh cheque from the drawee bank and might have received the amount by depositing it in the different bank. Hence the learned Forum committed mistake by arbitrarily granting the amount of the cheque with a compensation of Rs.15,000/- with interest without considering the above aspect of the case.
10. The respondent failed to appear at the time of final hearing. However in written notes of argument he claimed the allegations of the appellant to be false and requested to confirm the impugned order.
11. We considered the contentions of both the parties. We find that the appellant is a responsible bank which has to act in the professional manner by properly maintaining the record and informing the respondent of the consequences and the situation which arises in the dealings with its consumer. It was incumbent upon the appellants to maintain a proper record of the deposited cheque and also to maintain the record of its dispatch and its encashment. In any eventuality it was incumbent upon the appellants to give timely reply and keep the respondent informed of the development, which the appellants have totally failed. It shows that by not properly dealing with the cheques, the appellants have caused a deficiency in service to the respondent for which it deserves to compensate the respondent.
12. However, we find that the respondent had remained also totally unconcerned about the cheque deposited by him. We do not find any evidence provided by him of making continuous enquiries after the depositing of the cheque when he claimed that he was required to take loan to pay the workers. We also find that the complaint is filed in the year 2012 when the cheque is certified to have been deposited in the year 2009. He also took a certificate of the loss of the cheque on 28/11/2011 i.e. after a very long time. Though we find no reason to hold the complaint to be delayed as the cheque was not traced and encashed by the appellant keeping the cause of action continuous for the respondent.
13. The respondent has not made it clear as to whether he took any step for getting fresh cheques of Rs.50,000/- from drawer of previous lost cheques. He has also not make it clear as to whether he took any legal ation against drawer of that cheques for recovery of Rs.52,000/- from him after getting certificate on 28/11/2011 from appellants bank about loss of the cheques. Hence respondent is not entitled to claim the said amount of the cheques
We therefore find no reason to provide the value of the cheque to the respondent though he deserves to get the compensation for physical and mental harassment.
14. We therefore find that the learned Forum committed a mistake in providing the value of the cheque which needs to be modified. Hence we partly allow the appeal and pass the order providing compensation for causing physical and mental harassment to the respondent as below.
// ORDER //
