Haryana

StateCommission

A/350/2014

Yashvir - Complainant(s)

Versus

PNB - Opp.Party(s)

Mukesh Yadav

25 Oct 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

                                                                  First Appeal No.350 of 2014

Date of Institution: 02.05.2014

Date of Decision: 25.10.2016

 

Yashvir S/o Sh.Ghan Shayam, R/o village Kakrala, Tehsil and distt. Mohindergarh, proprietor Yadav Khad Beej Bhandar,
Dongra Ahit, Tehsil and Distt. Mahendergarh.

…..Appellant

Versus

1.      Punjab National Bank, Branch Dongra Ahir, Tehsil and District Mahendergarh through Manager, P.N.B., Dongra Ahir, district Mahendergarh.

2.      Post Master, Post Office,Dongra Ahit, Tehsil and Distt. Mahendergarh.

3.      Post Master, Post Office Musepur, Tehsil and Distt. Mahendergarh.

4.      Manager, Gurgaon Gramin Bank, Branch Berli Kalan, Tehsil and District Mahendergarh.

5.      Kisan Beej  Bikri Kendra through proprietor Krishan Kumar, R/o village Motla Kalan, Tehsil and Distt. Rewari (Haryana).

                                      …..Respondents

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

                             Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                                                                                                                        

Present:              Shri Mukesh Yadav, Advocate counsel for   appellant.

Shri N.K.Mankotia, Advocate counsel for the respondent No.1.

Mr. Ravinder Pal Singh, Advocate counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3.

None for the respondent No.4.

  

                                                   O R D E R

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

          It was alleged by the complainant that opposite party (O.P.) No.5 purchased seeds valuing Rs.50,000/- from him and when he demanded that amount O.P.No.5 issued cheque dated 28.12.2012 of Rs.50,000/- in his favour. He submitted that cheque with O.P.No.1- i.e. Panjab National Bank (PNB) for encashment.  PNB assured to inform him as and when the amount would be received. He enquired about encashment time and again, but, ultimately it was told that the said cheque was  sent to Gurgaon Gramin Bank i.e. O.P.No.4 on 31.12.2012 through post office, Dongra Ahir.  O.P.Nos.2 and 3 told that the cheque was delivered to O.P.No.4, but, O.P.No.4 informed that the said cheque was never received for encashment.  Ultimately he sent registered notice, but, even then his grievances were not redressed and the matter was put off under one pretext or the other.  O.P. No.1 be directed to pay Rs.50,000/- to him alongwith interest etc.

2.      O.Ps. filed  separate replies controverting his averments. It was alleged by O.P.No.1/respondent No.1 that he deposited cheque dated 28.12.2012 with the bank for Rs.50,000/- in his account for clearance.  It sent cheque to O.P.No.4 through registered post vide receipt No.1037 dated 31.12.2012.  O.P.No.1 also alleged in reply that to it’s letters dated 07.05.2013, 31.05.2013 and 19.06.2013, Superintendent of post Gurgaon, Division Gurgaon told that the cheque in question was delivered to O.P.No.4.  Other averments were also denied and requested that complaint be dismissed.

3.      In addition thereto O.P.Nos.2 and 3 alleged that they were exempt from any liability as provided under section 6 of Indian Post Office, Act 1896 (In short “Post Office Act”).  The article was delivered to addressee under proper signature which was mentioned in delivery slip. There was no deficiency in service on their part.  Objections about locus standi, non-joinder of necessary parties etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint.

4.      In addition thereto O.P.No.4 alleged in reply that neither it received the alleged cheque nor any employee put signature on delivery slip.

5.      In addition thereto O.P.No.5 alleged that  he issued three blank cheques as security to the complainant.  When he asked complainant to return those cheques he failed to return them. Complainant desposited blank cheque dated 28.12.2012 in his account by mentioning Rs.50,000/-.  He was not liable to pay for the same.  Thus there was no deficiency in service on his part.

6.      After hearing both the parties learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Narnaul (In short “District Forum”) declined relief claimed by complainant vide impugned order dated 19.02.2014.

7.      Feeling aggrieved therefreom complainant has preferred this appeal.

8.      Arguments heard.  File perused.

9.      From the perusal of impugned order dated 19.02.2014 it is clear that complainant has miserably failed to prove that cheque in question was issued by O.P.No.5.  When no cheque was issued how he can ask for payment. The cheque presented by him could be fabricated. Had it not been so he must have produced some evidence before the District forum.  From the perusal of the record it is clear that complainant did not produce any evidence.

10.    More so, as per Section 45 A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (In short “Act”) if any cheque is lost in transit then the person  can again apply to the drawer to issue duplicate cheque.  Keeping this provision Hon’ble Supreme Court opined in Civil Appeal No.43 of 2009 titled as Hon’ble Branch Manager, Federal Bank Ltd. Vs. N.S.Sabastian decided on 07.01.2009,   that in case of loss of cheque complaint cannot be filed and the drawer can be asked to issue duplicate cheque.  Nothing is left to be discussed after the opinion of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case law. Findings of learned District Forum is based on law and facts and cannot be ignored. Hence the appeal is dismissed.

 

October 25th, 2016

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

S.K.