STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                                                First appeal No.111 of 2022

Date of the Institution: 30.03.2022

Date of Decision:07.04.2022

Naresh Kumar S/o Shri Sadhu Ram, aged about 53 years, R/o Village & PO Damla, Tehsil Radaur, District Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                             .….Appellant

Versus

1.      Punjab & Sind Bank, Damla, Tehsil Radaur, District Yamuna Nagar through its Manager.

2.      Amit Anand, Manager, Punjab & Sind Bank, Damla, Tehsil Radaur, District Yamuna Nagar.

3.      Punjab & Sind Bank, Main Branch, Anand Market, Yamuna Nagar through its Chief Minister.

4.      Manager HDFC Bank Ltd. VPO Naharpur, District Yamuna Nagar.

…..Contesting Respondents

5.      Mannu Kumar  S/o Shri Ram Nath, r/o H.No.1416, Sher Pur, District Gajipur (UP).

                                                                             .….Respondents

CORAM:    Mr.S.P.Sood, Judicial Member

                   Mr. Suresh Chander Kaushik, Member

Present:-    Mr.G.C.Shahpuri, Advocate for the appellant.

O R D E R

S P SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

Naresh Kumar-Appellant has preferred the present appeal against the order dated 25.02.2022 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri (In short “District Commission”)  vide which the complaint was dismissed.

2.      The brief facts of the complaint are that he is permanent resident of village Damla and is agriculturist by profession (small farmer) and is having bank account bearing No.2023 with the respondent No.1-Punjab & Sind Bank, Damla. He was availed the services of respondent Nos.1 to 3.  Previously the respondent No.5-Mannu Kumar was serving in Plywood factory at Damla. The respondent no.5 was friend of complainant.  The respondent No.5 borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000/- from him as he was in dire need of money for his domestic purpose and assured that he would return the above said amount very shortly.  Respondent No.5 issued post dated cheque bearing NO.000001 dated 02.01.2020 amounting to Rs.50,000/- drawn on HDFC Bank VPO Naharpur from his account to him for encashment.  On 02.01.2020, the respondent No.5 came at the house of the complainant and requested him not to present the above said cheque on 02.01.2020 as he could not arrange the funds and further requested him to present the above said cheque in the third week of March 2020.  He presented the cheque through his banker i.e. respondent No.1 on 20.03.2020 for encashment, but, the staff of respondent No.1and 2 assured  the complainant that his cheque has been sent for encashment to the banker of respondent No.5. The staff of respondent No.1 and 2 had never given any satisfactory reply and always lingered on the matter.  In the month of April 2020, the respondent No.5 had left the job from Damla Plywood Factory.  Respondent No.5 has also changed  his mobile number and also left his native village to some other unknown place for the job purpose.  Ultimately he received return memo report dated 14.05.2020 from his bank i.e. respondent No.1 through respondent No.2 on 30.05.2020.  The memo was returned uncashed on the ground “Instrument out dated/stale” meaning thereby the cheque in question was received by the respondent No.4 after loosing its validity period of 90 days.  The validity of the cheque was three months. The complainant presented the cheque on 20.03.2020, however, he received the return memo report dated 14.05.2020 sent by respondent No.4 from his banker on 30.05.2020.  He requested the respondent No.1 and 2  to disclose the date on which the cheque was sent to respondent No.4, but, they failed to give any satisfactory information . Thus there was negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.

3.      The complaint was resisted by the O.P. Nos.1 to 3 by filing their written reply before the District Commission. While taking the preliminary objection it has been alleged that no cause of action in favour of complainant to file the present complaint.  Objections about complainant has no locus standi, maintainability of complaint,   complainant is bad for non-joinder of necessary party and complaint is false and frivolous etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint.

4.      On merits,  the respondent No.1 send the cheque in question to the clearing house through courier agency namely YAYU SEVA COURIER SERVICE VIDE RECEIPT No.16833.  Due to Covid-19, there was complete lockdown in the country on relevant time and due to which all the services were stopped.  The complainant has some legal remedy to recover the amount from the drawer of the cheque.  Thus there was no negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.Nos.1 to 3.

5.      O.P.No.4 filed separate reply and alleged  that respondent No.5 was having a saving account  with answering respondent. The cheque of Rs.50,000/- drawn on HDFC Bank, was received on 14.05.2020 for clearing, however the said cheque was returned to Punjab & Sind Bank vide memo dated 14.05.2020 with remarks “ Instrument outdated” as the cheque was received after three months i.e. after prescribed the stipulated period for the presentation of the cheque and as per the latest guidelines provided by the RBI.   The complainant is not entitled for any amount. Thus there was no deficiency and negligency on the part of the answering respondent.  Preliminary objections about maintainability of complaint, the complainant is estopped by his own act conduct from filing and maintaining the present complaint, the complaint is bad for mis-joinder etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint.

6.      After hearing both the parties, learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri (In short “District Commission”) dismissed the complaint vide order dated 25.02.2012.

7.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, complainant-appellant has preferred this appeal.

8.      The argument has been advanced by Mr.G.C.Shahpuri, Advocate for the appellant. With his kind assistance the entire records of the appeal had been properly perused and examined.

9.      During the course of arguments before this Commission, learned counsel for the appellant (original complainant) has argued that the validity of the cheque was three months. He presented the cheque on 20.03.2020, however, he received the return memo report dated 14.05.2020 sent by respondent No.4 from his banker on 30.05.2020.  He requested the respondent No.1 and 2  to disclose the date on which the cheque was sent to respondent No.4, but, they failed to give any satisfactory reply.  The said cheque was returned to Punjab & Sind Bank vide memo dated 14.05.2020 with remarks “ Instrument outdated” as the cheque was received after three months. Thus there was negligency and deficiency in service on the part of the respondent Nos.1 to 4.  Learned District Commission has wrongly dismissed the complaint. Learned counsel  for the complainant-appellant prayed that impugned order  dated 25.02.2022 be set aside  and appeal filed by the complainant-appellant be allowed.

10.     It is not disputed that the cheque was received by respondent No.1  to 3.  It is also not  disputed that the respondent No.1 send the cheque in question to the clearing house through courier agency namely YAYU SEVA COURIER SERVICE VIDE RECEIPT No.16833.  It is also not disputed that  due to Covid-19, there was complete lockdown in the country and due to which all the services were stopped.  

11.      On 23/24.04.2020, complete lock down as imposed in the country by the Central Govt.  At the time of lockdown, the Govt. gave some relaxation in the month of May 2020. The complainant presented the cheque on 20.03.2020, however, he received the return memo report dated 14.05.2020.   Perusal of the file shows that cheque was issued on 02.01.2020  meaning thereby, it was to be honoured by 31.03.2020.   During the pandemic period, all the establishments were stopped. Some relaxations were given by the Central Govt. in the month of May 2020.   All types of services were got effected.  The appellant has a right to recover the amount from the respondent No.5 through various processes. The delay in sending the cheque and non-honouring the cheque on the part of the respondents No.1 to 4 was beyond their control.  The learned District Commission rightly dismissed the complaint of the complainant. The respondent Nos.1 to 4 are not responsible for any kind of negligency or deficiency in service and as such, while dismissing the complaint, no illegality committed by the learned District Commission, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri and resultantly appeal being devoid of merits and stands dismissed in limini.

07th  April, 2022      Suresh Chander Kaushik                        S. P. Sood                                                    Member                                                         Judicial Member                            

S.K

(Pvt. Secy.)