Sh. Ashish Agarwal      V/s   Punjab National Bank & Anr.

As recorded in the order sheet dated 30.01.17 none has been appearing on behalf of the Complainant since 30.07.13. Hence, notice of pairavi was issued to him for 09.03.17.

As per the track report notice issued to the Complainant vide dispatch No.382 dated 28.02.17 has been delivered to him on 06.03.17. Thereafter also none has appeared on his behalf.

Pleadings are complete. Evidence of the parties is also compete. Written arguments also filed. Therefore, we proceed to decide the complaint on merits.

Complainant who is the permanent resident of the USA has filed the present complaint by alleging that on 21.01.10 Sri Kant, his friend had deposited cheque bearing No.147175 amounting to Rs.65103/- drawn on Vijaya Bank, Gurgaon (Haryana) at the collection counter of OP No.2 for its clearance and collection of amount to the complainant’s account  maintained by the OP No.1 at Daryagang, New Delhi. OP No.2 initially credited the cheque amount in the account of the complainant but on 23.01.10 debited the cheque amount on  the ground that the cheque had been returned back unpaid by its drawee bank. The father of the complainant made numerous visits to the office of OP No.2 but the  OP No.2 did not handover the cheque to him thereby depriving him from filing a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable  Instrument Act.  In the reply to the legal notice dated 12.02.10 the OP No.2 informed the complainant that as per the bank record address of the beneficiary was incomplete and therefore the complainant was requested to collect the cheque from the branch personally.  Therefore, pleading deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part OPs, the complaint has been filed for the reliefs described in the prayer clause.

In the reply OP has inter-alia pleaded that Sh. G.L. Agarwal, the father of the complainant did not come forward to collect the cheque from the bank and hence neither any negligence nor any deficiency in service nor unfair trade practice is attributable to the OPs. 

 The complainant has preferred to remain silent on the fact that the address of the beneficiary in the bank record was not complete and the complainant was advised to collect the cheque from the bank but his father did not go to the bank to collect the cheque in person. Therefore, negligence, if any, was on the part of the complainant himself.  Therefore, no deficiency in service has been proved against the OPs.

In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the complaint and dismiss it with no order as to cost.

Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties through speed post. File be consigned to record room.

Announced on 27.04.17.