DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.
Complaint No. 548
Instituted on: 08.09.2016
Decided on: 15.03.2017
Surinder Kumar son of Raja Ram, resident of House No.67/14, Shivpuri Mohalla, Near Brahm Kumari Ashrram, Dhuri, Tehsil Dhuri, Distt. Sangrur.
…Complainant
Versus
1. Punjab National Bank, Main Branch, through its Branch Manager, Dhuri.
2. Punjab National Bank through its Branch Manager, 603, Central Road, Jangpura (New Delhi).
..Opposite parties.
For the complainant : Shri Rajiv Singla, Adv.
For Opp. party No.1 : Shri Parmod Saxena, Adv.
For OPp. Party No.2 : Exparte.
Quorum: Sukhpal Singh Gill, President
Sarita Garg, Member
Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member
Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.
1. Shri Surinder Kumar, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite party (referred to as OP in short) on the ground that the complainant is a consumer of the OP by opening a saving account number 0140000100184117 with the OP number 1. Further case of the complainant is that on 2.4.2016 he presented a cheque number 291133 dated 13.2.2016 for Rs.25,000/- payable at PNB Jangpura, New Delhi for clearance to OP number 1 and the OP number 1 sent the cheque to the said branch at Jangpura, New Delhi for clearing purpose, but the same has not been credited to his account. The complainant though approached the OP number 1 so many times, but all in vain. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation and further to pay Rs.50,000/- on account of compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment and litigation expenses.
2. In reply of the complaint filed by the OP number 1, legal objections have been taken up on the grounds that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and has concealed the material facts, that the complaint is liable to be dismissed for non joinder of the necessary party. On merits, it is stated that the OP number 1 gave the complainant the photocopy of the reference made by the OP to PNB Jangpura, New Delhi and their reply to the OP, but the complainant intentionally did not place that photocopies on record with this complaint. It is stated that the complainant was having complete knowledge that there is no fault or negligence on the part of the OP. The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied.
3. Record shows that the OP number 2 did not appear despite service, as such it was proceeded exparte.
4. The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of legal notice, Ex.C-3 copy of postal receipt, Ex.C-4 copy of cheque for Rs.25,000/-, Ex.C-5 copy of letter dated 12.5.2016, Ex.C-6 copy of cheque despatch register and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP number 1 has produced Ex.OP-1 affidavit, Ex.OP-2 copy of letter dated 29.9.2016, Ex.OP-3 copy of acknowledgement, Ex.OP-4 copy of despatch register and closed evidence.
5. We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite party and evidence produced on the file and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits part acceptance, for these reasons.
6. It is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant deposited a cheque bearing number 291133 dated 13.2.2016 for Rs.25,000/- with the OP number 1 on 2.4.2016 which was payable at PNB Jangpura, New Delhi, but the same has been lost in the transit by the OP and the proceeds of the same were never credited to the account of the complainant. Ex.C-4 is the photocopy of the cheque in question, but its Photostat copy is not legible and it is not clear who had issued the cheque in question. Ex.C-5 is the copy of writing of the OP number 2 showing that they did not receive the cheque in question for encashment. On the other hand, the stand of OP number 1 is that they forwarded the cheque vide despatch register, a copy of which on record is Ex.OP-4. But, the fact remains that the complainant has not produced on record any cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence whether he received the duplicate cheque of Rs.25,000/- from the issuing authority of the cheque or not, nor, the cheque in question Ex.C-4 itself shows who was the issuing authority of the cheque. In the circumstances of the case, we are unable to give such a direction to the OP number 1 to pay the amount of the cheque to the complainant, as the complainant has not shown that he made any efforts to get the duplicate cheque issued from the cheque issuing authority. We further feel that the complainant can get the duplicate cheque issued from the cheque issuing authority. No doubt, due to the act of OP number 1, the complainant must have suffered mental tension, agony and harassment due to non deposit of the cheque in question in his account. The same view has also been taken by the Hon’ble Maharashtra State Commission in Branch Manager, Bank of India versus Dayaldas Gurumal Chawla, First Appeal N.412 of 2012 decided on 18.03.2015.
7. In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OP number 1 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.7500/- as compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment and an amount of Rs.2500/- on account of litigation expenses.
8. This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.
Pronounced.
March 15, 2017.
(Sukhpal Singh Gill)
President
(Sarita Garg)
Member
(Vinod Kumar Gulati)
Member
