DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA(PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> C.C.No.291 of 18.10.2007<br /> Decided on : 20.12.2007<br /> <br /> Bhavdeep Sharma S/o Mr. Yashpal Sharma, R/o H. No. 19784, Street No. 14, Ajit Road, Bathinda.<br /> ...... Complainant<br /> Versus <br /> <br /> Post Master, Nai Basti Post Office, Bathinda<br /> <br /> ...... Opposite party<br /> <br /> Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986<br /> <br /> QUORUM:-<br /> <br /> Sh. Lakhbir Singh, President<br /> Sh. Hira Lal Kumar, Member<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the complainant : Sh. Navdeep Singh, Advocate<br /> For the opposite parties : Sh. M.R. Gupta, Advocate<br /> <br /> O R D E R.<br /> <br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT:- <br /> 1. Complainant has Saving Account No. 81720 in Nai Basti Post Office, Bathinda. He had purchased Bajaj Discover Motor Cycle bearing No. PB-03 Q-3488. It was got financed from Ashok Leyland Finance Limited. On 21.8.2007, cheque No. 068946 for Rs. 1,568/- was issued by him in favour of the financier towards instalment of the Motor Cycle from his aforesaid Saving Account. On that day, Rs. 3,664/- were lying as credit balance in his account.<br /> <br /> Cheque was presented by the financier on 25.8.2007 to his banker i.e. Corporation Bank of India. This bank had sent it for clearance to the office of the opposite party. It was returned by the opposite party as dishonoured with the remarks 'Insufficient Funds' although a sum of Rs. 3,664/- was credit balance in his account. Financier informed him about the dishonouring of the cheque. It is alleged by him (complainant) that he has to undergo unnecessary harassment. He got served legal notice upon the opposite party through his counsel, but to no effect. The act and conduct of the opposite party has caused him mental and physical agony. His reputation has been lowered in the eyes of the officials of the financier and general public. In these circumstances, this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as the Act) has been preferred by him seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite party to pay him Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for causing illegal tension, harassment and lowering down his reputation.<br /> 2. On being put to notice, opposite party filed reply of the complaint taking legal objections that complaint is not maintainable in the present form; intricate questions are involved and as such, complainant be relegated to the civil court; complaint is false and frivolous; complainant has concealed material facts from this Form; he has not come with clean hands and he is estopped from filing the complaint by his act and conduct. On merits, he admits that complainant has Saving Account No. 81720 in Nai Basti Post Office, Bathinda. Cheque was issued by him in favour of the financier. It was inadvertently dishonoured with the remarks 'Insufficient Funds'. There is denial regarding the receipt of legal notice. Remaining averments in the complaint are not admitted.<br /> 3. In support of his allegations and averments in the complaint, Bhavdeep Sharma complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit<br /> <br /> <br /> (Ex.C.9), photocopy of Pass Book (Ex.C.1), cheque dated 21.8.2007 (Ex.C.2), photocopy of cheque return memo (Ex.C.3), photocopy of legal notice dated 13.9.2007 (Ex.C.4), postal receipt (Ex.C.5), Acknowledgment (Ex.C.6), photocopy of memo dated 12.9.2007 (Ex.C.7) and photocopy of statement of account (Ex.C.8).<br /> 4. On behalf of the opposite party, reliance has been placed on affidavit (Ex.R.1) of Sh. D.S. Jammu, Superintendent, Post Offices, Bathinda Division, Bathinda.<br /> 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Apart from this, we have perused the record.<br /> 6. Admittedly, complainant has saving Account No. 81720 in Nai Basti Post Office, Bathinda. Copy of the Pass Book is Ex.C.1. Cheque (Ex.C.2) for Rs. 1,568/- was issued by the complainant from his account in favour of his financier Ashok Leyland Finance. It was dishonoured with the remarks 'Insufficient Funds'. Cheque return memo (Ex.C.3) was issued by the opposite party to the banker of the financier i.e. Corporation Bank. Contention of the learned counsel for the opposite party that the dishonouring of the cheque is not willful and as such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, is not tenable. A perusal of the Pass Book, copy of which is Ex.C.1, reveals that the credit balance in the account of the complainant was Rs.3,664/-. When it is so, opposite party should not have dishonoured the cheque of Rs. 1,568/- on the ground of insufficiency of funds. Apparently,act of the opposite party is willful and intentional, particularly when amount of Rs.3,664/- was the credit balance in the account of the complainant and cheque was dishonoured. Public servants are bound to act carefully, cautiously and diligently. They are not supposed to harass the concerned person of the public unnecessarily. Complainant alleges that legal notice was served upon the<br /> <br /> opposite party. Copy of the legal notice is Ex.C.4. Opposite party has gone to the extent of denying the receipt of the legal notice, although as per Acknowledgment (Ex.C.6), it has been shown to have been received by the opposite party. Accordingly, deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party is proved.<br /> 7. Now question arises as to which relief should be accorded to the complainant. Financier could initiate criminal proceedings against the complainant under the Negotiable Instruments which could have penal consequences. Opposite party has unnecessarily harassed the complainant. His affidavit (Ex.C.9) is that his reputation has been lowered in the eyes of the officials of the finance company and general public. Moreover, complainant has to pay penal charges to the tune of Rs.250/- and and Rs. 25/- as cheque bouncing charges to the financier alongwith amount of instalment as is clear from Ex.C.7. In these circumstances, complainant deserves some compensation. In our view, apt and appropriate compensation for deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party is Rs. 1,500/-. <br /> 8. No other point was urged before us at the time of arguments. <br /> 9. In view of our forgoing discussion, complaint is allowed against the opposite party with costs of Rs.1,000/-. Opposite party is directed to do as under :-<br /> ( i ) Pay Rs. 1,500/- to the complainant as compensation under section 14 (1)(d) of the Act.<br /> ( ii ) Compliance within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the amount of compensation would carry interest @ 9% P.A till realization.<br /> 10. Copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be also<br /> <br /> <br /> consigned.<br /> <br /> Pronounced (Lakhbir Singh)<br /> 20.12.2007 President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Hira Lal Kumar)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr.Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member <br /> <br /> 'bsg' <br /> <br />