DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANSA. Complaint No.58/06.05.2008 Decided on : 22.12.2008 Tek Singh S/o Sh. Dayal Singh, S/o Sh.Saddu Singh, resident of Village Gamiwala, Post Office Boha, Tehsil Budhlada and District Mansa. ..... Complainant. VERSUS 1.State Bank of Patiala, through its Branch Manager, Boha,District Mansa. 2.State Bank of Patiala through its Branch Manager, Main Branch, Mansa 3.District Welfare Officer, Ambedkar Bhawan, District Mansa. 4.Kuldeep Singh, Tehsil Welfare Officer, Ambedkar Bhawan, District Mansa. ..... Opposite Parties. Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. ..... Present: Sh.G.K.Mangla, Advocate counsel for the complainant. Sh.S.P.Gupta, Advocate counsel for the OPs.No.1 & 2. Sh.Kuldeep Singh & Sh.Rajesh Kumar, Authorized Agent of OPs. No. 3 & 4 Before: Sh.Pritam Singh Dhanoa, President. Sh.Sarat Chander, Member. Smt.Neena Rani Gupta, Member. ORDER:- Sh.Pritam Singh Dhanoa, President. Shri Tek Singh has filed the Instant complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short called the 'Act'), on the averments, which may, briefly be described, as under:- Contd........2 : 2 : 2. That complainant belongs to Ramdasia Sikh community and is a poor labourer. He has opened a bank account bearing No.55131137018 in State Bank of Patiala, at village Boha and is being operated by him as per the rules, as such, he is consumer, under the said bank. The complainant, has two daughters, viz, Sukhpal Kaur and Sukhwinder Kaur, whose marriages, were solemnized on 19.7.2007. The Government of Punjab has floated a scheme, popularly known as 'Shagan Scheme', for paying Rs.15,000/-, on marriage of girls belonging to scheduled castes. As per the provisions, of the said scheme, cheque bearing No.C-222872 and C-222875, both dated 7.1.2008, were issued in the name of the complainant, in the sum of Rs.15,000/-, each by the District Welfare Officer, Mansa, but they were delivered to him by the said OP No.3 on 20.3.2008. The complainant deposited, the cheques in his account, maintained in the State Bank of Patiala, at Boha branch, on 21.3.2008. His bankers sent them in clearance, for collection of the amount, on 2.4.2008, to State Bank of Patiala, Mansa. The State Bank of Patiala, Mansa dishonoured those cheques, on 4.4.2008. On being approached, the officials of his bankers informed the complainant that cheques have been dishonoured because their validity period had expired on the date of receipt in their bank, as the cheques were valid for a period of three months from the date of issue. On 29.4.2008, the complainant approached Ops No.3 and 4, but he came to know that OP No.3 is out of station. However, both the cheques were secured by Kuldeep Singh, District & Welfare Officer, i.e. OP No.4 on the pretext that he wanted to note serial numbers. The OP No.4 took both the cheques inside the room of his office and after sometime he returned them to the complainant with the endorsement made by him by playing fraud, by making endorsement as valid upto 31.3.2008. This fact came to the notice of the complainant, after he approached his counsel. The complainant had retained photostat copies of both these cheques, which did not bear any such endorsement. The OP no.2 Contd........3 : 3 : has made those endorsement, on the cheques, with an object of frustrating the right of the complainant to receive the payment, for which he has initiated criminal proceedings. As such, there is deficiency in service and the opposite parties are liable to make payment of amounts of cheques in question, along with Rs.60,000/-, by way of compensation, for mental and physical harassment, undergone by the complainant and another sum of Rs.8,000/- as costs. Hence this complaint. 3. On being put to notice, Ops No.1 and 2 filed written version, resisting the complaint by taking preliminary objections; that this Forum has no jurisdiction, to entertain and try the complaint, because, it is based on fraud practiced by the complainant; that complainant is not a consumer under the answering opposite parties, as such, complaint is not maintainable; that complainant is stopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present complaint, because, he had mentioned his old Account Number on the vouchers at the time of deposit of cheques, dated 7.1.2008 on 21.3.2008, which was corrected by him after seeing his pass book, on 2.4.2008; that the cheques sent for clearing to the opposite parties at Mansa Branch, were dishonoured, because they were valid upto 31.3.2008, but the complainant has concealed the material facts from the knowledge of this Forum, as such, his complaint is liable to be dismissed. On merits, it is admitted that complainant is maintaining account with the answering opposite parties, but it is denied for want of knowledge that marriages of his daughter, Sukhpal Kaur and Sukhwinder Kaur were solemnized on 19.7.2007 and cheques in question were issued in his name under Shagan Scheme floated by the Government of Punjab. It is submitted, that complainant had deposited both these cheques with the answering opposite parties for collection of the amount on 20.3.2008. It is contended that both the cheques were sent for clearing to State Bank of Patiala, Mansa on 2.4.2008 by its Boha Branch for collection through clearing, but they were received back dishonoured on 4.4.2008. It is reiterated that on the Contd........4 : 4 : voucher, the complainant has mentioned his old Account No.11700559450 and on being called by the officials of the answering opposite parties, he appeared on 2.4.2008 and disclosed the correct account number. It is denied that answering opposite parties are liable to pay compensation for loss accrued by the complainant due to delay in presentation of cheques or compensation or costs. Rest of the allegations, made in the complaint, have been denied, and a prayer has been made, for dismissal of the same, with costs. 4. The remaining opposite parties filed separate written versions, taking preliminary objections; that complainant is not a consumer under them and that, he has no locus standi to file the present complaint and to seek compensation from them; that complaint is bad for mis joinder of necessary parties, and is not maintainable; and that this Forum has no jurisdiction, to entertain and try the complaint. On merits, factum of issuance of cheques has not been denied and it is submitted that complainant has fabricated false version and presented before the Forum. At the end a prayer has been made that complaint be dismissed with compensatory costs of Rs.10,000/-. 5. On being called upon, by the Forum, to do so, the complainant filed his affidavit Ext.C-1 and examined Joginder Singh Son of Sh.Ajmer Singh, a co-villager, who tendered his affidavit Ext.C-2, and another co-villager Dharampal Son of Sh.Ram Kishan, who tendered his affidavit, Ext.C-9. Before closing his evidence, the complainant tendered in evidence photocopies of series of documents Ext.C-3 to C-8, including copy of legal notice dated 30.4.2008, served upon him and photocopies of Pay-in-Slips, showing deposits of cheques in bank of Ops No.1 and 2. On the other hand, Sh.Kuldeep Singh and Rajesh Kumar, Authorised Agent of Ops No.3 and 4, made statements that they did not want to produce any evidence. Learned counsel for the Ops No.1 and 2, have also made a statement, that documents tendered in evidence, by the complainant viz. Contd........5 : 5 : Ext.C-3, C-12 and C-13 may also be read as part of his evidence and he closed evidence. 6. We have heard the learned counsel, for the parties and gone through, the oral and documentary evidence, adduced on record, by the parties, carefully, with their kind assistance. 7. To begin with learned counsel for the complainant, Sh. G.K.Mangla, Advocate has submitted that from the oral and documentary evidence, on record, it stands established that cheques in question were deposited in time with the Ops No.1 and 2, but considerable delay took place for collection of the amount on their part and that OP No.4 secured the cheques from the complainant and made endorsements thereon by playing fraud on the pretext of noting down their number on being approached by the complainant to ascertain reason for dishonour. Learned counsel has argued that complainant is an illiterate and rural rustic person, whose innocence has been exploited, by the opposite parties and he has undergone physical and mental agony, due to the conduct of the opposite parties, as such, he is entitled, to claim the amount of cheques from them, along with compensation and costs. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties No.1 and 2, Sh.S.P.Gupta, has contended that there was considerable delay on the part of the complainant to deposit the cheques with his bankers and he has mentioned the old account number which he rectified on the deposited voucher after being summoned by the officials of Ops No.1 & 2, that the cheques have been dishonoured because date of validity has expired, as such, Ops No.1 & 2 have no liability to pay compensation for loss accrued by the complainant due to delay in presentation of cheques. 9. The complainant has tendered in evidence the copy of wedding card Ext.C-4, showing that the marriages of his daughters, named above, was solemnized on 19.7.2007. He has also tendered photocopy of his pass book Ext.C-3, showing that he had been maintaining his saving Contd........6 : 6 : bank account with State Bank of Patiala at village Boha. The said document also bears his photograph. He has further tendered in evidence copies of cheques bearing No.C-222872 and C-222875 both dated 7.1.2008. These photocopies of the cheques do not bear any endorsement of OP No.4 regarding the date of validity of cheque. However, the complainant has further produced on record photocopies of cheques in question Ext.C-7 and C-8 which bear the endorsements, at right hand top corner which reads as, valid upto 31.3.2008. Admittedly, cheques in question were dishonoured by main branch of State Bank of Patiala, Mansa branch on 4.4.2008, after bankers of the complainant sent them, for collection of amount, through clearance on 2.4.2008. As per remarks at foot note of the cheques, they were valid for a period of three months, but as per endorsement of OP No.4, they were valid upto 31.3.2008. The plea of the complainant is that after dis -honouring of the cheques, he approached Ops No.3 and 4 on 29.4.2008, but aforesaid endorsement, has been made, by OP No.4 by practicing fraud on 29.4.2008. As observed in the earlier part of the judgment, both the cheques are dated 7.1.2008, therefore, they were valid upto 7.3.2008. Had the endorsement been made on 29.4.2008, then OP No.2 i.e. State Bank of Patiala, Mansa might have honoured the cheques and after collection of the amount, the same have been remitted to OP No.1 i.e. State Bank of Patiala, Boha branch, but the cheques have been returned on the ground that their validity period has expired. Therefore, the plea of the complainant that endorsements on the cheques, in questionhave been made on 29.4.2008, by practicing fraud by OP No.4, does not satisfy our conscience. 10. The complainant has presented, the cheques in his bank, for collection of the amount on 20.3.2008, as such, there is considerable delay on his part for presentation of cheques in question. He cannot take benefit, of his own omission, to present these cheques, well in advance, before expiry of validity period. In the alternative, he might have approached the Contd........7 : 7 : competent authority and sought revalidation of the cheques. As such, there was no occasion for him to undergo mental and physical agony. In this regard reference may be made to 2007(I) CPJ 232 Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh in State Bank of Patiala versus Hari Ram Garg, cheque was lost in transit. It was held by the Hon'ble Commission that complainant in such cases is not entitled to claim or recover amount of cheque from the OP bank. It was further held that drawer should have been approached, for issuance of duplicate cheque and in case he refuse to do so, he could be compelled to do so by Court of law and the order passed by the Forum, directing the opposite party to pay the amount of the cheque, was set aside, but compensation was awarded in the sum of Rs.10,000/-. As such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops No.1 and 2 on account of which compensation may be awarded in favour of the complainant. 11. At this stage, learned counsel for the opposite parties No.1 and 2 has submitted that complainant has taken plea of fraud and for proving fraud, voluminous evidence is required to be led by him. Learned counsel has relied upon 2003(III) UT 662 CLT Balvinder Kaur andothers versus Punjab State Electricity Board and others wherein it has been held by the the Hon'ble Commission that in disputed questions of fact, matter requires lot of evidence, as such, such matter cannot be tried under the Act in summary manner. Learned counsel has further relied upon 2005(I) 255 CPJ Col.S.C.Thapliyal versus Sonu Motors wherein complainant alleged fraud and misrepresentation. It was held, that such allegations cannot be decided, in consumer proceedings, as elaborate evidence, and enquiry is required, to be made, as such, complaint is not maintainable, before the District Forum 12. As per plea of the accused that complainant mentioned old account number, on the voucher, while depositing them, for collection with its bankers, is also substantiated, by the copy of vouchers Ext.C-12 and Contd........8 : 8 : C-13, wherein account number, is found rectified, by the complainant. The Ops No.1 and 2 have not led any evidence, but initial onus was on the complainant to prove that no lapse took place on his part or that his bankers failed to present the cheques, to achieve some ulterior motive. Since he has failed to prove his version, therefore, onus never shifted on the opposite parties to prove to the contrary. As such, he cannot succeed on the basis of any weakness in case of Ops No.1 & 2. After carefully evaluating the facts borne on record, we have come to the conclusion that Ops No.1 and 2, cannot be burdened, with liability sought to be imposed by the complainant in his complaint. The evidence on record is not enough for adjudication of the controversy in dispute. As such, relief cannot be granted to the complainant. We have already held in earlier part of the order, and in view of the said finding, returned by us, this plea raised, by the learned counsel for Ops No.1 and 2 has become redundant. Moreover, the controversy, can be adjourned on the basis of the material placed on record and no such plea has been taken by Ops No.1 and 2 in their written version and Ops No.1 and 2 are not entitled to address any argument on behalf of Ops No.3 and 4. As per the complainant plea of fraud, has been practised by Ops No.3 and 4 and not by Ops No.1 and 2. Therefore, we do not find, much substance in the plea of Ops No.1 and 2, so far as, adjudication of the controversy, by this Forum is concerned. 13. Sh.Kuldeep Singh and Sh.Rajesh Kumar, Authorized Agents of the remaining opposite parties jointly submitted that cheques in question have not been issued for consideration, as such, complainant, cannot be termed, to be a consumer within the purview of the Act and, if, their submission is accepted by this Forum then complaint is bound to fail. The authorized agent of OP No.4 has also contended, that complainant, has failed to prove the plea of fraud played by OP No.4 and, as such, he is not entitled to payment of any compensation or costs. 14. Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the Contd........9 : 9 : cheques in question have been issued under Social Welfare Scheme, floated by the Government of Punjab, as such, they cannot be said to be without consideration. Learned counsel has also submitted that Ops No.3 and 4 were under obligation to issue fresh cheques, even if, period of validity had expired, as such, no ground is made for non-suiting, the complainant and he is entitled to claim compensation for humiliation faced by him, due to the conduct of the opposite parties. 15. As per own case of the complainant, chques have been issued by Ops No.3 and 4 in connection, with Social Welfare Scheme initiated by, the Government of Punjab, for making of payment, of specific amount on marriages, of girls belonging to Scheduled Castes, living in the State. As such, we express our inability to accept the plea of the counsel, for the complainant that cheques have been issued for consideration. Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act, defines the word 'consumer' as a person, who hires or avails, of any services, for consideration, which has been paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval, of the first mentioned person, but does not include a person who avails of such services, for any commercial purpose. 16. The bare perusal of the above said provisions goes to show that any payment, made gratuitously by the Government, for welfare of its citizens, does not fall, within the ambit of 'consumer', as defined above, because, such a scheme, is without consideration. Since there was no consideration, on the part of the Ops No.3 and 4 or Government of Punjab, in issuance of cheques in question, in the name of the complainant, for implementation of the Social Welfare Scheme, therefore, complaint against Ops No.3 & 4 is not maintainable. Contd......10 : 10 : 17. The contents of the affidavit of the complainant, that he approached, OP No.4 on 29.4.2008, after dishonouring, of the cheques and he made endorsement, by practicing fraud, is corroborated by the affidavits furnished, by Joginder Singh S/o Ajmer Singh, Ext.C-2, and Dharampal S/o RamKishan, Ext.C-9, his co-villagers. 18. In the light of the above discussion, we hold that because the cheques, have been dishonoured, on the ground, that they have been presented, after the expiry of period of validity, much prior to 29.4.2008, therefore, no confidence, can be reposed, on the affidavits of the complainant and above named witnesses, examined by him. So far as, the plea of the counsel for the complaint, regarding playing of fraud, is concerned, it may not be out of place, to mention here, that in present age of technology, contents of any document, may be removed and fresh matter may be added by use of technical devices like computers and other electronic components. Therefore, no confidence can be reposed on version projected by the complainant about fraud committed by OP No.4. Since cheques have been issued by OP No.3 & 4, therefore, they cannot be burdened with any liability, for inconvenience, caused to him and expenses incurred by him due to dishonouring of the cheques. The complainant, was at liberty to approach, the concerned authority, for extending the period of validity of the cheque, but he has failed, to do so, for the reasons, best known to him. As such, complaint filed by him, is bound to fail. 19. For the aforesaid reasons, we are not inclined to award any compensation or give any direction to the opposite parties, so far as, relief prayed, by the complainant, in the instant complaint, is concerned. Resultantly, complaint is ordered, to be dismissed. However, due to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, parties are left to bear their own costs. Contd......11 : 11 : 20. The copies of the order be supplied, to the parties, free of costs, as permissible, under the rules. File be indexed and consigned to record. Pronounced: 22.12.2008 Neena Rani Gupta, Sarat Chander, P.S.Dhanoa, Member. Member. President.
