Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/18/532

Inderjit Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab National Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Navtej S. Rep.

11 May 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No:532 dated 27.08.2018.                                                         Date of decision: 11.05.2022. 

 

Inderjit Kaur W/o. Harnek Singh, VPO Shamashpur, Tehsil Samrala, District Ludhiana-141114.                                                                                                                                                                                       ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

Punjab National Bank, Chandigarh Road, Samrala through its Branch Manager.                                                                                …..Opposite party

 

          Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Gaganpreet Singh, Advocate.

For OP                           :         Sh. Sarup Singh, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

1.                Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that she maintains an account No.3466000103028911 with the OP Bank. On 26.09.2017, the complainant deposited one cheque bearing No.853845 for a sum of Rs.37,326/- which was drawn on State Bank of Patiala. After a few days, when the complainant came to know that the amount of the cheque was not credited in her savings account she approached the OP many times but every time she was told that the cheque had not been cleared. In fact, the cheque seems to have been lost or misplaced by the OP due to negligence of the official of OP Bank. This amounts to deficiency of service. In the end, a prayer to direct the OP Bank to pay the cheque amount of Rs.37,326/- along with interest @9% per annum with compensation of Rs.50,000/- and litigation expense of Rs.10,000/- has been made.

2.                The complaint has been resisted by the OP. In the written statement filed on behalf of the OP, it has been, inter alia, pleaded that the complainant deposited the cheque which was sent by the OP Bank through its branch at G.T. Road, Khanna by way of registered letter on 27.09.2017. The cheque in question was sent to the clearing by the Khanna branch of the OP Bank. Later on, it was revealed that the cheque was not encashed and was returned back by the Khanna branch who sent the cheque to the OP at Samrala through Madhur Courier Services on 29.09.2017 vide slip No.8120212983 the cheque was lost in transit. The OP Bank has further pleaded that as per the RBI guidelines if the cheque is lost in transit/in clearing process, the customer is entitled to be reimbursed by the banks for related expenses for obtaining duplicate instruments. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled for the cheque amount or any damages. The rest of the averments made in the complaint have been denied as wrong and in the end, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

3.                In evidence, the complainant submitted her affidavit as Ex. CA along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C3 and closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, the counsel for the OP tendered affidavit Ex. OP/A of Sh. Gurinder Singh, Manager of OP along with documents Ex. OP1 to Ex. OP15 and closed the evidence.

5.                We have heard the counsel for the parties and have gone through the written arguments submitted by the OP as well as record carefully. 

6.                The grievance of the complainant is that the cheque No.853845 deposited by the complainant with OP Bank on 26.09.2017 has not been credited into her account and the same seems to have been lost or misplaced by the official of the OP causing a loss of Rs.37,326/- to the complainant.

7.                The counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant suffered loss of cheque amount of Rs.37,326/-  as the OP Bank did not even inform the complainant about the loss of the cheque nor supplied him with the memo vide which the cheque was dishonoured due to some fault on the part of the drawer of the cheque. In these circumstances, the OP Bank is liable to make good the loss of cheque amount of Rs.37,326/-. In support of his arguments, the counsel for the complainant has relied upon 2019 (4) CPJ 2 in Manager, Bank of Baroda and another Vs Chitrodiya Babuji Divanji it has been held by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi that as the petitioner bank failed to return the cheque to the complainant, the latter was deprived of his legal right to file a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act against the account holder. Thus, the complainant had to suffer a loss of Rs.3,60,000/- and it is the responsibility of the OP Bank to compensate the loss.  

8.                On the contrary, the defence raised by the OP Bank is that the cheque was received. Since it was drawn on State Bank of Patiala, Khanna branch, the cheque was sent to Khanna branch of the OP Bank who further sent the same to the concerned Khanna branch of State Bank of Patiala. It was returned dishonoured with memo by State Bank of Patiala, Khanna and sent to Khanna branch of OP Bank which further sent the same through Madhur Courier Services to the OP Bank but the cheque along with dishonour memo was lost in transit along with certain other documents. Surprisingly, the OP Bank or its Khanna branch did not inform the complainant about the loss nor any information in writing is shown to have been sent to the complainant regarding the dishonour of the cheque or with regard to loss of the cheque. It clearly amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the OP Bank.

9.                Now a word about the quantum of compensation. The complainant has claimed that the OP be made to pay the entire amount of the cheque with interest. However, this plea raised by the counsel for the complainant is not tenable. It has not been disclosed in the complaint as to who was the drawer of the cheque. It has also not been disclosed whether subsequently, the drawer of the cheque refused to issue a duplicate cheque. It has also not been disclosed as to on what account the cheque had been issued by the drawer of the cheque in favour of the complainant or further whether the complainant initiated any action against the drawer of the cheque in a civil or criminal court for non-payment of the amount of the cheque. In the absence of any such evidence, it cannot be said that the complainant suffered a loss of the cheque amount nor the OP Bank cannot be asked to pay the amount of the cheque to the complainant. Even otherwise, as per the RBI guidelines Ex. OP15, in the event of loss of instruments like cheque in transit, the customer is entitled to be reimbursed by the banks for related expenses for obtaining duplicate instruments and interest for reasonable delay in obtaining the same. In addition to this, in 2009 (1) CPJ 198 in State Bank of India Vs Muntha Lakshmi Kumari it has been held by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission  that if the complainant failed to show by leading any evidence that there was loss caused to him in as much as that the cheque has been misused or encashed, the petitioner bank cannot be held liable to pay the cheque amount. In the said case, it was further held that the compensation, however, can be awarded for deficiency of service on the part of the petitioner bank for having lost the same. In the light of the law laid down in the cited case and keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances, it would be just and proper if the OP is liable to make a compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant for causing in convenience to the complainant for having lost the cheque in transit.

10.              So far as the case law laid down in Manager, Bank of Baroda and another Vs Chitrodiya Babuji Divanji (Supra) relied upon by the counsel for the complainant, the same cannot be applied to the facts and circumstances of the present case as in the complaint, it has not been pleaded anywhere by the complainant that he suffered a loss of Rs.37,326/- on account of the fact that the amount of the cheque could not be subsequently recovered from the drawer. Moreover, it has been clearly held in State Bank of India Vs Muntha Lakshmi Kumari (Supra) that if the complainant fails to prove that same loss caused to her in as much as the cheque was misused or encashed and in the absence of such proof, the Bank cannot be held to pay the cheque amount.

11.            As a result of the above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed with a direction to the OP to pay a composite compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

12.              Due to rush of work and spread of COVID-19, the case could not be decided within statutory period.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:11.05.2022.

Gobind Ram.

Indrjit Kaur Vs Punjab National Bank                                      CC/18/532

Present:       Sh. Gaganpreet Singh, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh. Sarup Singh, Advocate for the OP.

                  

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint is partly allowed with a direction to the OP to pay a composite compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:11.05.2022.

Gobind Ram.