Haryana

StateCommission

A/852/2016

JOGINDER SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK - Opp.Party(s)

MUNISH KUMAR GARG

17 Oct 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      852 of 2016

Date of Institution:      19.09.2016

Date of Decision :       17.10.2016

 

Joginder Singh s/o Sh. Daya Nand, Resident of Village Shahpur, District Jind.

                                      Appellant-Complainant

Versus

1.      The Manager, Punjab National Bank, Branch Office Kandela,
District Jind.

2.      Punjab National Bank, Head Office, 7, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066, through its Chairman/Managing Director.

                                      Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Argued by:          Shri Munish Kumar Garg, Advocate for appellant.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

          Joginder Singh-Complainant, is in appeal against the order dated August 9^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jind (for short ‘the District Forum’) seeking enhancement of compensation.

2.                The complainant-appellant, maintained Savings Bank Account with Punjab National Bank (PNB)-Opposite Parties/respondents. He deposited cheque No.000004 for Rs.1.00 lac drawn at Bank of India, issued by one Darshan Lal Batra. The cheque was returned by Bank of India to PNB with remarks “Insufficient Balance”. However, Bank of India officials misplaced the cheque. Thus, the complainant could not file complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act.  Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

3.                The opposite parties-respondents in their written version stated that the cheque was dishonoured by Bank of India upon which the cheque was drawn. It was further submitted that the cheque was lost in transit between Bank of India, Kandela Branch and Bank of India, Jind and despite efforts, the cheque could not be traced out.  Denying the allegations of the complainant, it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

4.                After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the case file, the District Forum vide impugned order allowed complaint directing the complainant to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- and Rs.3,000/- as litigation expenses.

5.                The solitary contention raised on behalf of the complainant-appellant is that the opposite parties-respondents be directed to pay the amount of cheque, that is, Rs.1.00 lac alongwith interest and compensation.

6.                It is not disputed that the cheque was dishonoured by the drawee bank, that is, Bank of India and it was lost in transit. It is also not in dispute that the cheque was not misused.

7.                In State Bank of India versus Muntha Lakshmi Kumari, 2009 CTJ 520 (CP), Hon’ble National Commission held as under:-

“A cheque for Rs.20,000/- deposited with the petitioner –Petitioner sent the same for collection to the drawee bank through a courier agency – Cheque lost in transit –District Forum allowed the complaint –State Commission upheld the Forum’s order –Therefore, the present revision –Respondent failed to ask for a duplicate cheque despite being orally advised to do so – No proof that the cheque in question misused or encashed –Therefore, the petitioner not liable to pay the cheque amount alongwith interest to the respondent –Impugned order set aside and the petitioner held liable for its deficiency in service –Petitioner directed to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- to the respondent –Impugned order set aside.”

 

8.                In view of the above, it is held that if a cheque is lost in transit with the bank but not misused or encashed by any person, then the bank cannot be held liable to pay the cheque amount to the complainant and the only liability that can be fastened upon the bank is to pay compensation keeping in view the cheque amount.  In this case, the complainant has been awarded compensation of Rs.20,000/- besides Rs.3,000/- litigation expenses. Thus, the complainant has been sufficiently compensated and no case for enhancement of compensation is made out.

9.                Hence, the appeal fails. It is dismissed.

 

Announced 17.10.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL