DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.533 of 2010
DATE OF INSTITUTION: - 03.09.2010
DATE OF ORDER: - 07.12.2015
Manish Kumar son of Shri Raj Kumar, resident of Khadi Mohalla, Bhiwani.
.……Complainant.
VERSUS
Punjab National Bank, Main Branch Loharu Road, opposite Jogi wala Mandir, Bhiwani through its Manager.
…….. Opposite Party.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 & 13 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT
BEFORE :- Shri Rajesh Jindal, President
Shri Balraj Singh, Member
Smt. Ansuya Bishnoi, Member
Present:- Shri S.S. Saini, Advocate for complainant.
Shri M.L. Sardana, Advocate for respondent.
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
The case of the complainant in brief, is that he is having an account bearing No. 0100445516 in Punjab National Bank, Main Branch, Bhiwani and on 23.09.2008 he used to deposit the cheque no. 005300A01846/0 amounting to Rs. 10,000/- issued by Life Insurance Corporation of India, Sirsa and a sum of Rs. 85/- was deducted being the charges of clearance on 09.01.2008 from the account of the complainant. The complainant alleged that at the time of deposit of the cheque, a sum of Rs. 11,873/- was lying deposited in his account and after deposit of the aforesaid cheque, the complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 30,000/- in cash. The complainant alleged that he received a statement of account showing a credit balance of Rs. 43,626/- and he noticed that a sum of Rs. 9915/- was debited into the account. The complainant alleged that he enquired the matter from the OP regarding deduction of the amount and it was told that the cheque deposited by the complainant on 09.01.2008 was not enchased. Again the complainant enquired from the LIC regarding the alleged non encashment of the cheque and it was told that the cheque has duly been encashed and the amount of Rs. 10,000/- has been debited from the account of the LIC. It is alleged that the complainant requested the OP many times to credit the amount of Rs. 9915/- but to no avail. It is alleged that a legal notice dated 02.07.2010 was also issued to the OP but no reply was given. The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the opposite party, he had to suffer mental agony, harassment and humiliation. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OP and as such he had to file the present complaint.
2. Opposite party on appearance filed written statement alleging therein that the cheque in question was sent to the concerned Bank for collection to its Branch Office at Sirsa but the same was not received after clearance. It is submitted that the credit amount of Rs. 9915/- was wrongly given in the account of the complainant on 09.01.2008. It is submitted that when the said mistake came to the notice of the bank the amount of Rs. 9915/- was debited in the account of the complainant. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of respondent and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
3. In order to make out his case, the complainant has placed on record Annexure C1 to Annexure C3 alongwith supporting affidavit.
4. In reply thereto, the opposite party has placed on record Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-5 alongwith supporting affidavit. Written arguments on behalf of OP filed.
5. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
6. Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint. He submitted that the opposite party has failed to give the credit of the cheque for Rs. 10,000/- into the saving bank account of the complainant. The said cheque was deposited by the complainant with opposite party for collection from Sirsa, the issuing branch of the office of the cheque.
7. Learned counsel for the opposite party reiterated the contents of reply. He submitted that the cheque of the complainant was sent by the opposite party for collection to the branch office at Sirsa but the same was not received at Sirsa by the concerned bank, hence the payment of the cheque was not made to the complainant.
8. Learned counsel for the opposite party stated that the opposite party has also arranged the duplicate cheque no. 183874 dated 21.10.2011 from the LIC of India which was drawn in favour of the complainant. He produced the photo copy of the said cheque and stated that the complainant refused to receive the said cheque after due compliance.
Admittedly, the cheque in question was deposited by the complainant with the opposite party for collection and the same was sent by the opposite party for collection to the concerned bank at Sirsa. The said cheque was not received by the said concerned payee bank. Hence the opposite party did not receive the funds of the cheque. It has not come on record that the amount of the cheque has been misused or it has been enchased. Therefore, we hold that the opposite party is not liable to make the payment of the cheque because it did not receive the funds from the issuing bank. But the opposite party is liable for the lost of the cheque in transit. Thus it is guilty of deficiency in service. The opposite party cannot escape its liability for the payment of reasonable compensation to the complainant, which we assessed at Rs. 2500/-. Resultantly, the complaint of the complainant is party allowed and the OP is directed to pay Rs. 2500/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of passing of this order. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated:07.12.2015. (Rajesh Jindal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Ansuya Bishnoi), (Balraj Singh),
Member. Member.
