Haryana

StateCommission

A/65/2015

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK - Complainant(s)

Versus

SANJEEV UPPAL AND OTHERS - Opp.Party(s)

R.S.BHATIA

21 Aug 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :        65 of 2015

Date of Institution:      19.01.2015

Date of Decision :       21.08.2015

 

The Punjab National Bank, a body Corporate, constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 having its Head Office at 7 Bhikhaji Cama Place, New Delhi and Branch Office, amongst others, at Baldev Nagar, Ambala City, Haryana through its Senior Manager, Principal Officer of the Bank and GPA holder.

                                      Appellant-Opposite Party No.1

Versus

 

1.      Sanjay Uppal s/o Sh. O.P. Uppal, Resident of House No.115/1841, Baldev Nagar, Ambala City.   

Respondent-Complainant

 

2.      M/s Dolphin Service, 24 Shalimar Market, Opposite Local Bus Stand, Ambala City.

                                      Respondent-Opposite Party No.2

 

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                                                                                                              

Present:               Shri Y.P. Sharma, Advocate for appellant.

Shri Sanjay Dhiman, Advocate with Shri Sanjay Uppal-respondent No.1-complainant.

None for respondent No2.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

Punjab National Bank (for short PNB) - Opposite Party No.1, is in appeal against the order dated December 19^th, 2014, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short ‘District Forum’), Ambala in Complaint No.241 of 2003.

2.      Sanjay Uppal-complainant (respondent No.1 herein) is maintaining Saving Bank account No.19442 with appellant- PNB He deposited cheque bearing No.SLY 671022 drawn at PNB, Kurukshetra Branch, for collection and credit of the amount in his saving bank account. Neither the amount was credited in his account nor the cheque was returned. Despite notice, not getting any reply, he filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

3.      Notice being issued, only PNB-opposite party No.1 contested the complaint raising plea that out station cheques are sent by ordinary post and in case of loss of cheque the bank has no liability. It was admitted that the complainant maintains saving bank account and deposited the cheques, however, stated that the cheque was sent through M/s Dolphin Courier Service, who wrongly delivered it into State Bank of India, Thanesar, where it was stated to have been misplaced. Denying its liability dismissal of the complaint was prayed.

4.      After evaluating the pleadings of the parties and the evidence available on the record, the District Forum allowed the complaint directing the PNB  to pay Rs.30,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum after one month of the date of deposit of cheque, that is, 13.05.2003 till its realization and Rs.5,000/- as compensation on account of harassment and litigation expenses. Direction was also issued to comply with the order within the stipulated period failing which the awarded amount shall carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum for the period of default.

5.      Learned counsel for the appellant- PNB raised two fold arguments. Firstly, that in case of loss of cheque the bank has no liability and secondly that the liability, if any, was of M/s Dolphin Courier Services who wrongly delivered the cheque to State Bank of India instead of PNB

6.      Before adverting to other merits, it would be pertinent to mention here that in compliance of the order passed by the District Forum, the appellant-PNB deposited the entire amount which has been received by the complainant, therefore, in view of the judgment rendered by Hon’ble National Commission in First Appeal No.460 of 2007, Ms. Kusum Anjali vs. M/s Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd. decided on January 28^th, 2013, the appeal has become infructuous.

7.      Yet even proceeding on merits, the appellant- PNB did not deny the deposit of cheque by the complainant. In the entire reply filed by the appellant- PNB, there is not even a word that the bank had made any effort either to get the cheque back from State Bank of India or to take any action against the courier service for wrong delivery of cheque or even against State Bank of India for wrongly retaining the cheque. The appellant- PNB remained satisfied by letting the complainant to do whatever he desired. The appellant- PNB did not offer any assistance to the complainant in this regard.

8.      In this view of the matter, no case for interference in the order of the District Forum is made out.

9.      Hence, the appeal is dismissed.

10.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the respondent No.1 – complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced 21.08.2015

(Urvashi Agnihotri) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL