RESERVED

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

U.P., Lucknow.

Appeal No. 2237 of 2015

Branch Manager, Allahabad Bank,

Branch Civil Lines, District Gorakhpur.          ..Appellant.

Versus

1- Shri Ramesh Chand Srivastava s/o Late Lajpat Rai,

    R/o Mauja Nagwa, Post Jaitpur, Tehsil,

    Sadar, District Gorakhpur.  

2- Treasury Officer, Tehsil Compound,

    District Maharajganj.

3- Assistant Superintendent of Registrar,

    Treasury Office, District Maharajganj.   ...Respondents.

Present:-                                                   

1- Hon’ble Sri Vijai Varma, Presiding Member.

2- Hon’ble Sri Raj Kamal Gupta, Member.

Shri Sharad Kumar Shukla for the appellant.

Shri S.K. Srivastava for the respondent.

Date  23.4.2018

JUDGMENT

(Delivered by Sri Vijai Varma,  Member)

Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 29.9.2015, passed by the Ld. DCDRF, Gorakhpur in complaint case No.91 of 2014, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal. 

Facts leading to this appeal, in short, are that the respondent/complainant had retired from the office of the respondent no.3 in January, 2013. The complainant was having a savings bank account with the appellant/OP no.1. The complainant was issued a cheque for Rs.64,112.00 by the respondent/OP no.2 which was deposited by the complainant in his account with the appellant/OP no.1. When the complainant met the OP no.1 then he was told

(2)

that the cheque deposited by him has not been received back from Maharajganj branch office hence, it was not possible to make the payment. The complainant kept contacting the OP no.1 but the OP, on one pretext or the other did not make payment and it is only after running for a year that he was told that the cheque was sent to Gorakhpur branch office through courier but it was not received there and it has been lost in transit. Thereafter, the complainant met the OP no.2 & 3 for issuing duplicate cheque but they did not take effective steps hence, the complainant had to file a complaint case in the Forum below wherein the appellant/OP no.1 filed their WS mentioning therein that the cheque in question was sent to Maharajganj branch office and unless the duplicate cheque was received, the payment could not be made to the complainant. The OP no.2 & 3 did not send the duplicate cheque though they were contacted by the OP no.1 for issuing a duplicate cheque, therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.1.

The OP no.2 had also filed the WS mentioning therein that if the cheque was not paid then information should be given to the Assistant I.G. Registrar, Maharajganj, thereafter, a duplicate cheque could have been issued after getting the information from the Treasury, Maharajganj regarding non-payment of the cheque but the complainant did not give any such information. The complainant will be issued cheque after getting non-payment certificate from the Treasury, Maharajganj. The OP no.3 also filed their WS mentioning

(3)

therein that after getting the information regarding non-payment of the cheque from the Treasury, Maharajganj further proceedings shall be taken.  The ld. Forum, thereafter, passed the impugned order on 29.9.2015, as under:-

"परिवादी का परिवादी विरूद्व विपक्षी सं01 स्‍वीकार किया जाता है। परिवादी विपक्षी सं01 से 68112.00 (अरसठ हजार एक सौ वारह रू0) की क्षतिपूर्ति की धनराशि प्राप्‍त करने का अधिकारी है। परिवादी इस धनराशि पर दि0 21.1.13 से अन्तिम वसूली तक 06 प्रतिशत साधारण वार्षिक ब्‍याज भी विपक्षी सं01 से प्राप्‍त करने का अधिकारी है। विपक्षी को निर्देशित किया जाता है कि वह निर्णय व आदेश के दिनांक से एक माह की अवधि के अन्‍तर्गत समस्‍त धनराशि परिवादी को प्रदान करे अथवा बैंक ड्राफट के माध्‍यम से मंच में जमा करे, जो परिवादी का दिलाई जा सके। नियत अवधि में आदेश का परिपालन न किए जाने की स्थिति में समस्‍त आज्ञप्ति की धनराशि विपक्षी से विधि अनुसार वसूल की जाएगी।"

Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order, this appeal has been filed by the appellant mainly on the grounds that ld. Forum has passed an erroneous order that the bank is only liable for making payment of the amount but the ld. Forum has passed the order awarding the amount of the cheque which is totally wrong therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appeal allowed.

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the entire record.

In this case, it is not disputed that the complainant had deposited a cheque for Rs.64,112.00 issued by the respondent no.2 in his account with the appellant/OP no.1.

(4)

It is also not disputed that the amount was not credited in the account of the respondent/complainant as the cheque was lost in transit. The disputed point according to the appellant/OP no.1 is that the cheque of the complainant could not be credited in his account as it was lost in transit for which they did not commit any deficiency in service and hence, there was no occasion for the impugned order to have been passed by the Forum below. On the contrary, the complainant in his objections has stated that it was because of the negligence on the part of the OP no.1 that the amount could not be credited as despite running  from pillar to post he was not told as to what transpired with the cheque deposited by him. Therefore, the OP no.1 did commit deficiency in service. It transpires that the respondent no.2 & 3 in their WS filed before the Forum below, have contended that they were ready to issue duplicate cheque after completion of the formalities and getting non payment certificate from the Treasury, Maharajganj. There is no evidence that the cheque which was lost in transit was encashed and that a duplicate cheque could not be issued because of the cheque having been encashed. The appellant/OP no.1 appears to have committed deficiency in service in as much as they took considerable time in informing that the cheque was lost in transit and therefore, the complainant had to suffer but for that the entire amount of the cheque could not be recovered from the appellant/OP no.1 for such a fault and therefore, the ld. Forum appears to have erred in passing the impugned order directing the OP no.1 to make

(5)

payment of the entire amount of Rs.64,112.00 with interest. For the deficiency caused by the appellant/OP no.1 in causing delay in giving the information regarding the cheque having been lost, the amount which could have been lost by the complainant as interest could have been recovered as compensation from the appellant/OP no.1 but not the entire amount of cheque. It is also borne out from the record that the respondent no.2 & 3 are ready to issued duplicate cheque, so the duplicate cheque may be issued to the complainant after completion of the formalities at the earliest. Accordingly, this appeal deserves to be partly allowed and the impugned order set aside.     

ORDER

The appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 29.9.2015 is set aside. The appellant/OP no.1 is directed to make payment of compensation for the loss of interest to the tune of Rs.5,000.00 within a month otherwise, the appellant will have to pay interest @ 10% p.a.

No order as to costs.

Certified copy of the judgment be provided to the parties in accordance with rules.

                 (Vijai Varma)                (Raj Kamal Gupta)

               Presiding Member                     Member

Jafri PA II

Court No.2