BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Complaint no. 141 of 2013
Date of Institution: 13.8.2013
Date of Decision: 11.8.2016
Sanjeev Kumar s/o Sh.Hans Raj, aged about 26 years, r/o Ward no.4, near Old Post Office, Rania tehsil Rania District Sirsa.
………Complainant.
Versus
- State Bank of India through its Managing Director, Madam Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai.
- Manager, State Bank of India, Mini Sectt. Branch, Sirsa, distt. Sirsa.
- Om Parkash Atwal, Accountant, SBI, Centralized Pension Processing Cell, Sector 5, Panchkula.
……… Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Before: SHRI S.B.LOHIA…………………PRESIDENT
SHRI RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL ……MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Ajay Bansal, Advoate for complainant.
Sh.S.L.Sachdeva, Advocate for Opposite parties.
ORDER
In nutshell, complainant’s case is that he received a cheque no. 332004 dt. 12.5.2012 of OBC, Ganga Nagar for the sum of Rs.95000/- issued by one Jaswinder Singh of village 16Z, P.O.15Z, Lahoria Dhani, Distt. Ganga Nagar (Raj.). Complainant being consumer of Ops presented the abovesaid cheque to Op no.2 on 25.5.2012, which was sent for clearance to SBI, Ganga Nagar. The said bank returned the cheque to Op no.2 as dishonoured due to insufficient funds by registered post on 7.6.2012. As alleged, original cheque as well as memo have been lost by op no.3 and the same has not been handed over to the complainant. The complainant made complaint to op no.2 on 9.8.2012, but all in vain. Hence, the present complaint.
2. On notice OPs appeared and contested the case by filing reply that the cheque in dispute alongwith return memo was received by op no.3 on 16.6.2012 and the same was returned to the complainant on 18.6.2012. Ops also denied the remaining allegations.
3. By way of evidence, complainant produced his affidavit Ex. C1, receipt Ex.C2, copy of form Ex.C3, copy of cheque Ex.C4, account statement Ex.C5, copy of postal receipt Ex.C6, copy of postal delivery Ex.C7 and copy of complaint book dt. 9.8.2012 Ex.C8, whereas the Ops produced affidavit of Sh.Rajesh Juneja, Branch Manager Ex.R1 and copy of acknowledgement Ex.R2.
4. We have heard learned counsels for parties and have gone through the record carefully.
5. To decide the complaint, the question to be determined is that whether the Ops returned the dishonoured cheque with memo to the complainant or not? Through the affidavit of Sh.Rajesh Juneja, Branch Manager Ex.R1 and acknowledgement Ex.R2, it is clearly established on record that cheque in question has been returned to the complainant on 18.6.2012 and the complainant put his signatures in the acknowledgement book. As such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Ops. Ld. counsel for complainant also referred a judgment of Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in Appeal no.9 of 1996 decided on 14.9.2004 titled as State Bank of Indore Vs. National Textile Corporation and the same is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Hence, the present complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:11.8.2016 Member. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
