BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FEROZEPUR
C.C. No. 201 of 2014 Date of Institution: 19.5.2014
Date of Decision: 29.12.2014
Anil Kumar, aged 42 years, Son of Sham Lal, resident of Gali Ragor Bhawan, Ward No.8, Fazilka, Tehsil and District Fazilka.
....... Complainant
Versus
1. Oriental Bank of Commerce, Gaushala Road, Fazilka, through its Branch Mangar.
2. Oriental Bank of Commerce, H.O. Plot 05, Sector 32, Industrial Area, Gurgaon-122001, through its M.D.
3. Madhur Courier Services, Bikaneri Road, Fazilka, through its Incharge.
........ Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
* * * * *
PRESENT :
For the complainant : Sh. R.K. Sachdeva, Advocate
For opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 : Sh. Pankaj Monga, Advocate
For opposite party No.3 : Sh. Gagan Goglani, Advocate
QUORUM
S. Gurpartap Singh Brar, President
S. Gyan Singh, Member
C.C. No. 201 of 2014 \\2//
ORDER
GURPARTAP SINGH BRAR, PRESIDENT:-
Brief facts of the complaint are that on 10.9.2013, the complainant had deposited a cheque No.001787 dated 3.9.2013, worth Rs.15,00,000/-, drawn at Kotak Mahindra Bank, New Delhi, issued by Amit Kumar Sharma son of Devi Parshad Sharma, resident of J-354 Rishi Nagar, Rani Bagh, New Delhi in his account No.2752191046876, which is running with opposite party No.1. The complainant approached opposite party No.1, but neither opposite party No.1 has deposited the chqeue amount in account of complainant nor returned his said original cheque to him. Further it has been pleaded that on 22.11.2013, the complainant had sent a registered AD legal notice to the opposite parties. In response to the same, opposite party No.1 had sent a vague and incorrect reply by alleging that the complainant had not deposited the said cheque with opposite party No.1. The complainant sought an information under the Right to Information Act from the opposite parties, who provided the sought information i.e. copy of reminder No.1 and 2 dated 1.10.2013 and 4.10.2013, copy of email dated 5.10.2013, copy of courier run sheet obtained from Madhu Courier, copy of voucher as to depositing the above said cheque with opposite party No.1, photo copy of Madhu Courier Services, Fazilka as well as letter forwarding cheques/bills for collection,
C.C. No. 201 of 2014 \\3//
Inter Bank/Schedule referred. Thereafter, opposite parties Nos.1 and 2 have been putting off the matter on the pretext that the said cheque was sent to Service Branch i.e. to Oriental Bank Of Commerce, Service Branch, Ludhiana, situated at Bobby Complex, Samrala Road, Dharampura, Ludhiana, through opposite party No.3 on 10.9.2013 alongwith forwarding letter dated 10.9.2013 of opposite party No.1. But the same has not been delivered by opposite party No.3 to the service branch of Oriental Bank of Commerce at Ludhiana. Further it has been pleaded that the complainant had deposited his cheque with opposite party No.1 and the same was sent to its Ludhiana Branch and the same was misplaced by opposite parties. Due to typical mistake cheque No.001784 dated 13.3.2013 was typed in place of cheque No.001787 dated 3.9.2013 in Legal Notice dated 22.11.2013. Pleading deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant has prayed that the opposite parties be directed to pay the cheque amount of Rs.15,00,000/- with interest @ 12 % per annum till realization. Further a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- has been claimed as compensation for harassment and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and filed their respective written replies to the complaint. In their joint written reply, opposite party Nos.1 and 2 have pleaded that the complainant had
C.C. No. 201 of 2014 \\4//
deposited a Banker’s cheque bearing No.001787 dated 3.9.2013, worth Rs.15,00,000/-, drawn at Kotak Mohindera Bank on 10.9.2013. Opposite party No.1 had immediately despatched the said cheque deposited by the complainant to its service branch at Ludhiana for the clearance of the cheque vide BC No.02750300023113, dated 10.9.2013. The said cheque was sent to the Service Branch, Ludhiana situated at Bobby Complex, Samrala Road, Dharampura, Ludhiana, through Madhur Courier Services, Bikaneri Road, Fazilka on 10.9.2013 alongwith forwarding letter dated 10.9.2013 of opposite party No.1. The courier agent had also issued a receipt to opposite party No.1 regarding the receipt of the courier. Thereafter, opposite party No.1 came to know about the non-clearance of the chque in the account of the complainant and opposite party No.1 had enquired the fate of said cheque from the service branch, Ludhiana by writing a letter as well as by sending the reminders. The fate of cheque of the complainant was also enquired from the officials of Madhur Courier, through whom the cheque of the complainant was sent for its clearance to its Service Branch. Initially, the officials of the Courier did not give any satisfactory reply to the officials of opposite party No.1, but on persistent demands, they provided the Delivery Run Sheet and as per the Courier delivery Run Sheet, the particular post containing the cheque of the complainant was shown to be delivered to the Service Branch, Ludhiana.
C.C. No. 201 of 2014 \\5//
The matter regarding the alleged delivery of the cheque by the courier to the service branch of the bank was once again brought to the notice of the service branch at Ludhiana alongwith the copy of Courier Run Sheet. The Senior Manager of Service Branch has sent an email to opposite party No.1 on 5.10.2013, in which it has been mentioned that there is no authentication of their any officer and moreover, round stamp has been affixed and that is also of Service Branch, Miller Ganj, Ludhiana. So, as per the response of the Service Branch of the bank situated at Dharampura, Ludhiana, the said courier containing the cheque of the complainant has not been received by them. Moreover, the Service Branch has already been shifted from Miller Ganj, Ludhiana to Dharampura, Ludhiana about three years back. As such, there is no question of delivery of courier at Miller Ganj. It seems that in order to avoid any liability, officials of Courier Service has fixed a fake stamp on the Courier Run Sheet just to satisfy opposite party No.1 and further to shift the liability. Other allegations of the complaint have been denied and dismissal of the complaint has been prayed for.
3. In its written reply, opposite party No.3 has pleaded that opposite party No.1 delivered the article to opposite party No.3 on 10.9.2013 vide consignment No.8312433639 and the same was delivered on 21.9.2013 at Ludhiana Branch. Further it has been pleaded that earlier also, the Ludhiana Branch was delivered a number of consignment of
C.C. No. 201 of 2014 \\6//
opposite party No.1 and the receipt was given in the same manner as that of in the present case and all these documents have been duly received and there is no complaint regarding their non-receipt. Other allegations of the complaint have been denied and dismissal of the complaint has been prayed for.
4. Learned counsel for complainant tendered into evidence Ex. C-1 to Ex. C-11 and closed evidence on behalf of the complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party Nos.1 & 2 tendered into evidence Ex.OP-1 & 2/1 to Ex.OP-1 & 2/17 and closed evidence on behalf of opposite party Nos.1 & 2. Similarly, learned counsel for opposite party No.3 tendered into evidence Ex.OP-3/1 to Ex. OP-3/7 and closed evidence on behalf of opposite party No.3.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the file.
6. It is the admitted case of opposite party Nos.1 and 2 that the complainant had deposited a Banker’s cheque bearing No.001787 dated 3.9.2013 for Rs.15,00,000/- drawn at Kotak Mahindra Bank, New Delhi in his account No.2752191046876 being maintained with opposite party No.1 vide deposit voucher Ex.C-4 for its clearing from the issuing bank. The grievance of the complainant is that opposite party No.1 has neither credited the proceeds of the said cheuqe in his account nor has returned the
C.C. No. 201 of 2014 \\7//
said cheque in original to the complainant. Copy of correspondence placed on the file by opposite party Nos.1 and 2 as Ex.OP-1 & 2/4 and Ex.OP-1 & 2/8 to Ex.OP-1 & 2/12 reveals that opposite party No.1 had sent the said cheuqe to its Service Branch, Ludhiana situated at Bobby Complex, Samrala Road, Dharampura, Ludhiana, through Madhur Courier Services, Bikaneri Road, Fazilka on 10.9.2013 vide courier receipt Ex.OP-1 & 2/6 alongwith forwarding letter dated 10.9.2013 of opposite party No.1 for clearance vide BC No.02750300023113 dated 10.9.2013. However, this fact has also been admitted by opposite party Nos.1 and 2 in their written reply. Photo copy of Courier Run Sheet Ex.OP-1 & 2/7 reveals that the consignment booked by opposite party No.1 with opposite party No.3 vide courier receipt Ex.OP-1 & 2/6 was delivered by opposite party No.3 at its destination on 21.9.2013, which was duly received by officials of Service Branch of opposite party Nos.1 and 2 at Ludhiana under seal of the Service Branch and signatures. So far as plea of opposite party Nos.1 and 2 that as per the response of the Service Branch of the bank situated at Dharampura, Ludhiana, the said courier containing the cheque of the complainant has not been received by them; the Service Branch has already been shifted from Miller Ganj, Ludhiana to Dharampura, Ludhiana about three years back; and that in order to avoid any liability, officials of Courier Service seem to have fixed a fake stamp on the Courier Run Sheet just to satisfy opposite
C.C. No. 201 of 2014 \\8//
party No.1 and further to shift the liability, has no force because a perusal of copies of Courier Run Sheets placed on the file by opposite party No.3 as Ex.OP-3/2 to Ex.OP-3/7 clearly reveals that prior to receiving the consignment in question, the dak was being received by the officials of Service Branch of opposite party Nos.1 and 2 at Ludhiana from Madhur Courier Service under the same seal of the Service Branch, Ludhiana throughout in the year 2013. Therefore, it has been established on the record that the cheque in question has been misplaced by the Service Branch of opposite party Nos.1 and 2 situated at Ludhiana. Therefore, opposite party Nos.1 and 2 are guilty of rendering deficient services to the complainant, as a result of which the cheuqe in question has not been cleared and its proceeds have not been credited into the account of the complainant being maintained with opposite party No.1, which further caused undue harassment and mental agony to the complainant. Therefore, opposite party Nos.1 and 2 are liable to pay suitable compensation for rendering deficient services to the complainant besides payment of litigation expenses. However, we do not agree with the argument of the learned counsel for the complainant that he is entitled to the cheque amount of Rs.15,00,000/- from the opposite parties. No case of any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice is made out against opposite party No.3. Therefore, no liability can be fastened upon opposite party No.3 in this
C.C. No. 201 of 2014 \\9//
regard.
7. In view of the above discussion, this complaint is accepted and opposite party Nos.1 and 2 are directed to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation for rendering deficient services and Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. However, opposite party No.2 is at liberty to recover the above amount of compensation and litigation expenses from the salary of erring official (s) of its Service Branch at Ludhiana, after holding proper inquiry in this regard, if so desired. The complainant is also at liberty to pursue the matter with the drawer of the cheque in question for collection of its proceeds by following due process. Order regarding payment of above awarded amount of compensation and litigation expenses is directed to be complied with by opposite party Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, complaint against opposite party No.3 stands dismissed. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced 29.12.2014
(Gurpartap Singh Brar)
President
(Gyan Singh )
Member
