O R D E R
K.S. MOHI, President
The complainant has filed the present complaint against the O.Ps u/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The facts as alleged in the complaint are that the complainant had deposited a sum of Rs.20,000/- with the OP-2 on 10.7.2007 which was accepted and encashed by OP-2. It is alleged that without demanding PAN number OP-2 returned Rs.20,000/- to the complainant through cheque No.112528 dated 09.08.2007. It is further alleged that the complainant had deposited the said cheque in his account with the OP-1 bank on 23.8.2007 which was not credited in his account. He made a complaint with OP-1 on 22.10.2007. Even after two months there was no response in this regard. It is alleged that the complainant approached OP-2 at its Delhi Office from where the original cheque for Rs.20,000/- was deposited but OP-2 refused to issue another cheque even after giving an undertaking. It is also alleged that after six months when the cheque expired, the complainant again approached OP-2 but it refused to issue another cheque knowing that the cheque was not encashed. On these facts complainant prays that OPs be directed to refund amount of Rs.20,000/-, apart from costs and compensation as claimed.
2. The OPs were duly served but OP-2 did not put appearance, therefore, it was proceeded ex-parte on 27.10.2009. OP-1 appeared and filed the written statement. In its written statement OP-1 stated that the complainant had deposited the cheque in his account on 23.8.2007 which was returned on 27.8.2007. It is also stated that OP-2 had refused to issue another cheque as the cheque was not encashed. It is alleged that the complainant had full knowledge that the validity of the cheque was six months and he waited for six months and after six months the complainant approached OP-2 for revalidation of the cheque. It is also alleged that OP-1 has always given the best service to the complainant and he has not suffered any kind, monetary losses and mental agony on the part of OP-1. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP-1. Dismissal of the complaint has been prayed for.
3. Complainant has filed his affidavit in evidence testifying all the facts as alleged in the complaint. On the other hand Mr. Roop Kishore, Manager of OP-1 Bank has already filed affidavit alongwith documents in evidence on behalf of O.P Bank.
4. We have carefully gone through the record of the case and have heard submissions of the complainant and Ld. Counsel for the O.P.
5. In this case the complainant submitted that O.P-1 with whom the cheque was deposited failed to either get the same credited in his account or returned to him, therefore, there is deficiency in service on the part of the O.P-1. In support of his submission the complainant referred to the authorities reported as Azhar Mohammed & Ors. Vs. Punjab National Bank I (2009) CPJ 44 (NC), State Bank of India Vs. Muntha Lakshmi Kumari I (2009) CPJ 198 (NC), Canara Bank Vs. B. Muraleedharan Nair Aswathi Enterprises II (2008) CPJ 1 (NC), Central Bank of India Vs. Ajay Aggarwal & Anr. IV (2008) CPJ 342, Syndicate Bank Vs. M. Mohny IV (2009) CPJ 238 and Bank of Baroda Vs. Bennet Coleman & Co. Ltd. II (2009) CPJ 137. The gist of all the aforesaid authorities is that in case of loss of cheque in transit the bank cannot be held liable to reimburse the amount of cheque but the Consumer Fora can award compensation commensurate with the deficiency in service. The counsel for O.P-1, on the other hand, contended that though the concerned cheque of the complainant was received by O.P-1 but the same was returned to the complainant and such there was no deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.
6. I have considered the rival contentions raised by the complainant and counsel for the O.P-1, O.P-2 remained ex-parte throughout the proceeding. It is admitted case of the parties that complainant had deposited cheque for Rs.20,000/- with O.P-1 on 23.08.2007. The plea of O.P-1 is that cheque was returned to complainant on27.08.2007 but the same is refuted by the complainant. The O.P-1 has nowhere stated as to what was the reason of return of cheque to the complainant instead of getting the same credited in his account. Secondly, O.P-1 has miserably failed to establish the mode of return of said cheque to the complainant on 27.08.2007. It would not be out of place to mention here the O.P-1 has relied upon two documents namely exhibited Ex.DW-1/1 indicating entry of cheque in the bank and exhibited Ex.DW-1/2 about statement of account of the complainant. Thus no document whatsoever has been placed on record to indicate as to why cheque was returned to the complainant. Similarly no evidence is placed on record by O.P-1 as to when and by which mode that cheque was returned to complainant.
7. In our considered opinion, ends of the justice will be met if O.P-1 is directed to pay the amount of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation to the complainant for deficiency of service. The forum further directs O.P-2, who remained ex-parte throughout the proceeded, to issue another cheque in the sum of Rs.20,000/- in favour of complainant within a period of one month from the date of this order against indemnity bond to be filed by the complainant with O.P-2. Ordered accordingly.
Copy of the order be sent to the parties as per rules.
Announced this 30th day of November, 2015.
(K.S. MOHI) (SUBHASH GUPTA) (SHAHINA)
President Member Member
