DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC No. 89 of 04-04-2007<br /> Decided on : 29-06-2007<br /> <br /> Harjit Kaur W/o Late Sh. Nazar Singh, R/o House No. 24723, Gali No. 10/2, Baba Deep Singh Nagar, Bathinda.<br /> ... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1. Oriental Bank of Commerce, Civil Lines Branch, Bathinda, through its Branch Manager.<br /> 2. Superintendent Engineer, Irrigation Department, Bathinda.(Deleted vide order dated 7.5.07)<br /> ... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection<br /> Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM :<br /> <br /> Sh. Lakhbir Singh, President<br /> Sh. Hira Lal Kumar, Member <br /> <br /> For the Complainant : Sh. Ashok Bharti, Advocate.<br /> For the Opposite parties : Sh. Anil Joshi, Advocate. <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT<br /> 1. Instant one is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as `Act') which has been preferred by the complainant seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite party to pay Rs. 1,90,831/- i.e. value of the instrument alongwith interest thereon from the date of deposit till payment; Rs. 1.00 Lac as damages and Rs. 50,000/- for mental agony and harassment besides cost of the complaint.<br /> 2. Factual matrix of the case as emanates from the complaint itself may be stated as under :<br /> Complainant is having Saving Bank Account No. 07302011000240 with the opposite party. Nazar Singh was the husband of the complainant. He was serving in the Irrigation Department at Bathinda as Senior Clerk. He has since died on 4.11.04. After his death, his employer i.e. Irrigation Department had given her cheque No. 829259 for Rs. 1,90,831/-. Cheque was deposited by her for encashment on 22.12.05 in her saving bank account with the opposite party. Entry to this effect was made by the opposite party in her Pass Book. It had rejected the instrument on the same day without presenting the same to the concerned bank and also without assigning any reason. Instrument/cheque has not been returned despite repeated requests. She visited opposite party No.1 many a times, but the officials are paying deaf ears to her request. Due to the act, and conduct and negligence on the part of the opposite party, she is facing harassment and humiliation. She has already suffered loss of interest on the aforesaid amount. Opposite party is deficient in rendering service. It has also indulged in unfair trade practice.<br /> 3. Opposite party filed its version taking preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable; it has been filed to harass it for wrong gains; she has not approached this forum with clean hands; she has no cause of action and locus standi to file it; she is estopped from filing it by her act and conduct; complaint is bad for non-joinder of State Bank of Patiala as party and it is false and frivolous. Inter-alia its plea is that cheque No.829259 drawn on State Bank of Patiala, Bathinda was presented with it for encashment/collection purposes on 22.12.05. It had sent the same to State Bank of Patiala for clearing purposes which had returned it for endorsement from the Department. It (opposite party) returned the cheque to the complainant through courier M/s. Flight Despatch Courier & Cargo Ltd., Machhi Market, Bathinda for getting necessary endorsement. Cheque was lost in the office of the courier company and did not reach the complainant. This fact had come to its knowledge only when complainant had visited it in March, 2006 concerning the encashment of the cheque in question. Immediately action was taken. Courier Company was contacted which had intimated that envelop containing the cheque has been lost at its end. Letter dated 20.3.06 was issued by the courier company. Accordingly it (opposite party) had informed the Executive Engineer, Bathinda Canal Division, in writing vide letter dated 23.3.06 in which it was clearly written that cheque has been misplaced by courier agent. Further request was made for issuance of duplicate cheque. Complainant was also intimated about the misplacement of cheque in question. She was also requested to approach the Department for getting the duplicate cheque issued in lieu of the lost one. Neither employer of the deceased husband of complainant had issued duplicate cheque in lieu of the lost one nor complainant has made efforts to get it issued. Complainant had told that she would arrange duplicate cheque. Instead of getting the duplicate cheque, complaint has been filed on false facts to harass it for wrongful gains. It denies deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on its part. Inter-alia its plea is that it has acted efficiently and effectively. Since the cheque was misplaced in the office of the courier company and complainant is fully aware about this fact, it cannot be held responsible or liable in this regard. Matter was taken up with the courier company vigorously for finding out the misplaced cheque. Since the validity of the lost cheque has already expired and the cheque has not been encashed/credited as per their record, there is no problem in issuing duplicate cheque in lieu of lost one by the Department after getting certificate of non-payment of cheque from State Bank of Patiala, Bathinda. It denies that cheque which was presented was rejected for unknown reasons. Remaining averments in the complaint are denied by it.<br /> 4. In support of his averments contained in the complaint, complainant has produced in evidence her two affidavits (Ex. C-1 & Ex. C-2) and photocopy of Pass Book (Ex. C-3).<br /> 5. In rebuttal, on behalf of the opposite party photocopy of letter dated 23.3.06 (Ex. R-1), photocopy of one page of Despatch Register (Ex. R-2), copy of statement of account (Ex. R-3), photocopy of letter dated 20.3.06 (Ex. R-4) have been tendered in evidence.<br /> 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Besides this, we have gone through the record.<br /> 7. Some facts become undisputed in this case. They are that complainant is having Saving Bank 07302011000240 with the opposite party. Her husband Nazar Singh was serving in the Irrigation Department at Bathinda as Senior Clerk. He has since died on 4.11.04. Cheque No. 829259 for Rs. 1,90,831/- was issued in favour of the complainant concerning the service benefits of her husband. It was deposited by her with the opposite party for encashment on 22.12.05. It was rejected on the same day by way of making entry in the Pass Book of the complainant, copy of which is Ex. C-3. Thereafter instrument/cheque has not so far been returned to the complainant.<br /> 8. Mr. Joshi, learned counsel for the opposite party vehementally argued that cheque presented by the complainant on 22.12.05 was sent by the opposite party to State Bank of Patiala for clearing purposes. It was returned by that Bank for endorsement from the Department. Thereafter opposite party had sent cheque to the complainant for getting necessary endorsement through courier M/s. Flight Despatch Courier & Cargo Ltd., Machhi Market, Bathinda, vide Despatch No. 1852 dated 2.1.06 and copy of the entry of the Desptach Register in this regard is Ex. R-2. Cheque was lost in the office of the courier company and did not reach the complainant. This fact had come in it its knowledge when complainant visited office of the opposite party in March, 2006. Action was immediately taken and courier company was contacted. Intimation was received from the courier company through letter dated 20.3.06, copy of which Ex. R-4. It was to the effect that letter received under Despatch No. 1852 dated 2.1.06 was lost in its office. Thereafter letter was written to the Executive Engineer Bathinda Canal Division, Bathinda on 23.3.06 informing that cheque has been misplaced by the courier and duplicate cheque be arranged. Copy of the letter is Ex. R-1. He further submitted that complainant was also informed about the misplacement of the cheque and she was requested to pursue the matter with the Department for getting the duplicate cheque issued. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that bank is in any way deficient in rendering service.<br /> 9. Mr. Bharti, learned counsel for the complainant argued that no information has been received by the complainant either from the opposite party or from the Department regarding misplacement of the cheque by the agent of the opposite party i.e. courier company. Cheque was rejected by the opposite party without assigning any reason. Hence, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party is established.<br /> 10. We have considered the respective arguments.<br /> 11. Complainant in her affidavit Ex. C-1 reiterates her version in the complaint. Her another affidavit Ex. C-2 is dated 5.6.07 in which she has stated that she has not received any duplicate instrument nor has she received any payment against it. Bank has not intimated her regarding the loss of instrument by courier company which was the agent of the opposite party. In case the Irrigation Department issues her duplicate instrument, interest would not be paid on the amount of the instrument which has been lost due to negligence of opposite party No. 1. She has further stated that opposite party No. 1 did not intimate her the loss of the instrument. Bank authorities did not guide her despite repeated visits to them. Harassment and humiliation was caused and she was misbehaved. There is no affidavit of the concerned officer/official of the opposite party to rebut the plea of the complainant in Ex. C-2. Hence, her version in this affidavit goes unrebutted and unchallenged.<br /> 12. Ex. C-3 is the copy of the Pass Book of Saving Bank Account of the complainant. A perusal of this document reveals that cheque for Rs. 1,90,831/- was deposited by her on 22.12.05. It was rejected on the same day. No reason has been given for the rejection of this instrument. There is no document of the opposite party from which it can be concluded that reasons for the rejection of the cheque were intimated to her. It could be returned on 22.12.05. Now the opposite party has taken the plea that cheque was returned by State Bank of Patiala, Bathinda for endorsement from the Department. Complainant was visiting the opposite party repeatedly but cheque was not returned. Evidence led by the opposite party shows that cheque was sent to the complainant on 2.1.06 through courier. It was the agent of the opposite party. Letter containing the cheque was not received by her. She was repeatedly visiting the opposite party. Courier company brought it to the notice of the opposite party on 20.3.06 that letter No. 1852 dated 2.1.06 was lost in its office. Thereafter on 23.3.06, opposite party sent letter to the Executive Engineer Canal Division, Bathinda about the misplacement of the cheque by courier company. Plea of the opposite party that intimation of the misplacement of the cheque was also given to the complainant is unfounded and baseless as there is no affidavit of any official of the opposite party about this alleged fact. Evidence on the record does not prove it. Against this, there is affidavit Ex. C-2 of the complainant according to which bank did not intimate her the loss of instrument by courier company. Had the opposite party brought the reasons of rejection of the cheque to the notice of the complainant and returned the cheque to her well in time, she could approach the drawer for issuance or rectification of the duplicate cheque. Had there been refusal on the part of the Department, she could knock the door of a Court. In the facts and circumstances, deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party due to its act and conduct and negligence is established.<br /> 13. Now question arises as to which relief should be accorded to the complainant. Complainant is craving for damage to the tune of Rs. 1.00 Lacs and compensation for mental agony and harassment to the tune of Rs. 50,000/-. Husband of the complainant has since died. His service benefits were to be received by her. On the basis of our foregoing discussion, we conclude that she has been deprived of the use of money. Had she been intimated the reasons for rejection of of the cheque well in time, she could get the cheque rectifed or get issued the duplicate one in lieu of the misplaced one and could also earn interest by way of investing the amount. She paid repeated visits to the opposite party. This must have caused her harassment, humiliation and mental agony. In this scenario, she deserves some compensation which we assess as Rs. 25,000/- in view of the observations of the Hon'ble National Commission in the case of State Bank of Patiala Vs. Shri Vishwas Ahuja Revision Petition No. 310 of 2004 decided on 15.2.05 and of the Hon'be State Commission, Punjab in the case of State Bank of Patiala through its Branch Manager, Mansa Vs. Hari Ram Garg first Appeal No. 683 of 2005 decided on 23.5.06.<br /> 14. In the premises written above, complaint is allowed against the opposite party with cost of Rs. 1,000/-. Opposite party is directed to do as under :-<br /> i) Pay Rs. 25,000/- to the complainant as compensation under Section 14(1)(d) of the Act.<br /> Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of its receipt failing which the amount of compensation would carry interest @ 9% P.A. till realisation.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to record room.<br /> Pronounced :<br /> 29-06-2007 <br /> (Lakhbir Singh )<br /> President<br /> <br /> (Hira Lal Kumar)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br />