Haryana

StateCommission

A/21/2018

JAGDISH RAI AND ANOTHER - Complainant(s)

Versus

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK - Opp.Party(s)

DHRUV GUPTA

18 Apr 2023

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

  Date of Institution:09.01.2018

                Date of final hearing:18.04.2023

                                                Date of pronouncement: 25.04.2023

 

First Appeal No.21 of 2018

 

IN THE MATTER OF

 

1.      Jagdish Rai son of Ghansham Dass, aged 64 years, R/o House No.1019, Milap Nagar, Ambala City, Proprietor M/s Ravi Light House, Ambala City, 2903/2, Jagadhri Gate, Ambala City.

2.      M/s Ravi Light House, Ambala City, 2903/2, Jagadhri Gate, Ambala City, through its Proprietor, Jagdish Rai son of Ghansham Dass, aged 64 years, R/o House No.1019, Milap Nagar, Ambala City.

.….Appellants.

Through counsel Mr. Dhruv Gupta, Advocate

Versus

 

1.      Punjab National Bank, Bhikaji Cama Palace, New Delhi, through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director.

2.      Punjab National Bank, D.A.V. College Road Branch, Ambala City.

….Respondents No.1 & 2

Through counsel Mr. Ashish Rawal, Advocate

3.      State Bank of India, Mandi Branch, Ambala City.

…..Respondent No.3

Through counsel Mr. Mahesh Dheer, Advocate

 

CORAM:   S.C. Kaushik, Member.

 

Present:-    Mr. Dhruv Gupta, counsel for the appellants.

                   Mr. Ashish Rawal, counsel for respondents No.1 & 2.

                   Mr. Mahesh Dheer, counsel for respondent No.3.

 

O R D E R

S.C. KAUSHIK, MEMBER:

 

 

                   

                   Delay of 09 days in filing of the present appeal is hereby condoned for the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay.

2.                Present appeal has been preferred against the order dated 28.11.2017, passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ambala (now ‘District Commission’), vide which complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed.

3.               The brief facts of the complaint filed before learned District Commission are that complainant issued a cheque bearing No.218462 dated 15.09.2014 to the tune of Rs.5,80,000/- in favour of opposite party No.3 (‘OP No.3’) and on behalf of State of Haryana in order to pay sales tax. He dropped the same in the box meant for collection of the cheques duly maintained by OP No.3 in its branches.  It was alleged that on 26.09,.2014, Ravi Kumar (son of complainant) visited OP No.3 and enquired about receipt of payment of Rs.5,80,000/-, but no satisfactory reply was given. Thereafter, on visiting OP No.2 he came to know that the said cheque has been encashed in the name of one Naveen Kumar S/o Hari Om by their branch at Paharganj, Delhi in account No.165510031329 of Dena Bank, Narela Banch, Delhi. It was further alleged that due to deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1 & 2 the said Naveen Kumar got encashed the cheque after stealing the same from the collection box of OP No.3 by tampering the said cheque. FIR No.364 dated 01.10.2014 was also lodged by complainant. Thus, there was deficiency in service on the part of Ops.

4.                Upon notice, Ops appeared before learned District Commission and Ops No.1 & 2 filed their joint written statement, whereas, OP No.3 filed its separate written statement. OPs No.1 & 2 in their reply submitted that as per the record cheque No.218462 was issued by the complainants in favour of one Naveen Kumar for a sum of Rs.5,80,000/- which was got encashed from New Delhi branch on 23.09.2014 and it was denied that the cheque was dropped at SBI for payment of sales tax. It was further submitted that the Ops No.1 & 2 have acted with due diligence and there was no deficiency in service on their part.

5.                On the other hand, OP No.3 in its written statement submitted that the cheque in question was never dropped in the collection box of OP No.3. It was further submitted that if any cheuqe is dropped in the collection box, it is duly entered into the record maintained by the bank for the same and there was no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.3.

6.                After hearing the parties, learned District Commission dismissed the complaint of complainant vide its order dated 28.11.2017 as mentioned above.

7.                Feeling aggrieved therefrom, complainants-appellants have preferred this appeal.

8.                Arguments have been advanced by Shri Dhruv Gupta, learned counsel for the appellants, Shri Ashish Rawal, learned counsel for respondents No.1 & 2 and Shri Mahesh Dheer, learned counsel for respondent No.3. With their kind assistance the entire record of the appeal as well as of the learned District Commission have also been properly perused and examined.

9.                Mr. Dhruv Gupta, learned counsel for appellants has argued that appellants-complainants issued a cheque bearing No.218462 dated 15.09.2014 to the tune of Rs.5,80,000/- in favour of respondent No.3 as well as on behalf of State of Haryana in order to pay sales tax and dropped the same in the collection box of respondent No.3.  He further argued that due to the negligence on the part of respondents No.1 & 2, the said cheque was encashed by one Naveen Kumar S/o Hari Om in their branch at Paharganj, Delhi in account No.165510031329 of Dena Bank, Narela Banch, Delhi. He further argued that said Naveen Kumar got encashed the cheque in question after stealing the same from the collection box of respondent No.3 and tampered with the said cheque. He further argued that FIR No.364 dated 01.10.2014 was also lodged by appellants in this regard and thus, there was deficiency in service on the part of respondents. Further, he prayed for acceptance of the present appeal by setting aside the impugned order passed by learned District Commission.

10.              Mr. Ashish Rawal, learned counsel for respondents No.1 & 2 have argued that as per the record cheque No.218462 was issued by the appellants in favour of Naveen Kumar for a sum of Rs.5,80,000/- which was got encashed from New Delhi branch on 23.09.2014. He further argued that the cheque was not dropped at SBI for payment of sales tax. He further argued that respondents No.1 & 2 have acted with due diligence and denied other allegations levelled by the appellant. Further, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

11.              Mr. Mahesh Dheer, learned counsel for respondent No.3 has argued that cheque in question was never dropped in the collection box of respondent No.3. He further argued that if any cheuqe is dropped in the collection box, it is duly entered into the record maintained by the bank for the same. Further, he prayed for dismissal of the present appeal.

12.              The composite reading of averments taken in the complaint as well as in the grounds of appeal, it is true that cheque bearing No.218462 dated 15.09.2014 to the tune of Rs.5,80,000/- issued by appellants was encashed in favour of one Naveen Kumar at New Delhi. As per the appellants, said cheque was issued by them as payment of Sales Tax in favour of Haryana Government, but due to negligence on the part of respondents, cheque in question was encashed by one Naveen Kumar at Delhi. It is also true that an FIR No.364 dated 01.10.2014 was also lodged by appellants in this regard and trial against said Naveen Kumar was also commenced before Criminal Court at Ambala and in the said criminal case the accused has been declared PO and file has been consigned by learned Trial Court. In the present case, the main controversy involved is regarding stealing of cheque, thereafter tampering the same and getting encashed the said cheque by some unknown person, which cannot be decided in a summary manner.

13.              I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the finding given by the learned District Commission on merits.  Impugned order passed by learned District Commission is well reasoned, based on facts and as per law. The present appeal is thus without any merit and is liable to be dismissed and therefore, dismissed.

14.                 A copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. This order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.

15.                Application(s), pending, if any, stands disposed off in terms of the aforesaid order.

16.                File be consigned to record room alongwith a copy of this order.

Pronounced on 25^th April, 2023

                                                                                       

           

                                                                                                            S.C Kaushik

                                                                                                            Member                                                                                                                                 Addl. Bench-III

 

R.K