DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)

Consumer Complaint No.86 of 2017

                                               Date of institution:  07.02.2017                                             Date of decision   :  13.09.2018

Hitender Singh Bedi aged about 35 years son of Shri Charan Singh Bedi, resident of House No.1993-D, Ward No.7, Kharar, Tehsil Kharar, District SAS Nagar, Mohali.

…….Complainant

Versus

1.     State Bank of Patiala, Near Bus Stand Kharar, Tehsil Kharar, District SAS Nagar, Mohali through its Branch Manager.

2.     State Bank of Patiala, The Mall, Patiala through its General Manager.

                                                        ……..Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of

the Consumer Protection Act.

Quorum:    Shri G.K. Dhir, President,

                Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member

                Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member.

Present:     Shri Pankaj Sharma, counsel for complainant.

                Shri Anshul Kaushal, counsel for the OPs.

Order by :-  Shri G.K. Dhir, President.

Order

               Complainant, holder of account No.65012546872 with OP No.1 presented a payee cheque of amount of Rs.1.00 lakh of HDFC Bank for clearance on 04.04.2016. However, OPs presented the cheque late as disclosed by memo dated 08.04.2016. Last date for presentation of the cheque was 05.04.2016 because limitation of three months of encashment of the cheque was to expire on that date. OPs thereafter returned the cheque with remarks “instrument outdated/stale” to complainant. Due to negligence of OPs, complainant claims that he had to suffer loss of Rs.1.00 lakh because the person who was to pay the amount, refused to make payment. Complainant visited bank repeatedly, but got no satisfactory reply. On sending of legal notice, reply was received for refusing to compensate the complainant and that is why by pleading deficiency in service on part of OPs, this complaint for seeking compensation of Rs.1.00 lakhs because of sustained loss, but of Rs.25,000/- on account of mental harassment and agony and litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-.

2.             In reply it is admitted that complainant is account holder with OP bank, but it is denied that there is any deficiency in service on part of OPs. It is denied that complainant deposited the cheque on 04.04.2016. Rather the alleged counterfoil produced by complainant for showing deposit of cheque on 04.04.2016 has not been signed by any official of OP bank. It is claimed that blank vouchers for submission of cheques are always available in the bank for use by general public and as such the counterfoil produced by complainant has no evidentiary value. As per procedure followed by bank in ordinary course, a cheque drop box is placed in the bank, where cheques are to be dropped by customers. This box is opened in the evening and thereafter cheques are sent for collection. Information in that respect is uploaded on the server and on the next day after processing the information regarding the status of the cheque, it is disclosed as to whether cheque has been cleared or not. Cheque in question was never deposited with OP bank in time. The voucher attached with the cheque alleged to be having cutting of date because after doing overwriting figure ‘4’ is mentioned in place of figure ‘5’. Present complaint has been alleged to be filed by complainant in collusion with bearer of the cheque. Cheque was presented for the first time with OP bank on the date, when period of limitation was to expire. No explanation has been offered by complainant as to why cheque was not presented immediately after its issue. As the cheque in question deposited on the date, when limitation was to expire, and as such it is claimed that there is malafide intention on part of complainant.  Officials of OPs attended the complainant and tried to make him understand, but complainant misbehaved with officials of OP bank. Admittedly legal notice issued by complainant was duly replied by OPs. After denying other averments of the complaint, prayer made for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-6 and thereafter closed evidence. On the other hand, counsel for OPs tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.OP-1/1 of Shri Parveen Kumar, Associate of OP Bank alongwith document Ex.OP-1 and thereafter closed evidence. 

4.             Written arguments submitted by complainant, but not by OPs. Oral arguments heard and records gone through.

5.             Authority letter Ex.OP-1 itself shows as if Parveen Kumar whose affidavit Ex.OP-1/1 is tendered, has been authorised by bank to depose in this case. Copy of cheque in question bearing No.000860 dated 06.01.2016 is produced on record as Ex.C-1 for establishing that this cheque was issued by authorised signatory of  Vision Finance in favour of complainant on 06.01.2016 and as such certainly validity period of this cheque was to lapse on 05.04.2016. However, complainant has placed on record photocopy of counterfoil for establishing that this cheque was presented by him with OP bank on 04.04.2016. Though it is contended by counsel for OPs that date 04.04.2016 mentioned by doing overwriting because word ‘5’ after doing overwriting has been converted into ‘4’, but that submission of counsel for OPs has no force because by having look on Ex.C-2 itself, it is made out that this counterfoil of the cheque bears date 04.04.2016 without any overwriting of date. In view of production on record Ex.C-2, complainant able to establish as if he deposited the cheque in question on 04.04.2016 that is one day prior to date of expiry of cheque. Even OPs through reply sent to legal notice Ex.C-5 claimed that date of expiry of cheque was 05.04.2016. That reply received from Kharar Branch of OP bank produced on record as Ex.C-4. In this reply Ex.C-4 it is mentioned that the cheque has been deposited on the date on which validity was going to expire, but complainant through notice Ex.C-5 claims to have deposited the cheque on 04.04.2016. Version of deposit of cheque on 04.04.2016 is more believable than that of version of deposit of cheque with OPs on 05.04.2016 because of entry in counterfoil Ex.C-2 and further in view of false version taken in reply regarding doing of overwriting of word ‘4’ over ‘5’ in the counterfoil voucher. Rather this overwriting is not at all found anywhere in Ex.C-2 and as such plea taken in the reply is false.

6.             Memo of dishonour of cheque Ex.C-3 dated 08.04.2016 is produced by complainant, but no document for proving the date of receipt of cheque or of its dishonour produced by OPs, despite the fact that OPs could have produced record of bank for establishing that the cheque was dropped on 05.04.2016 and not before that. As and when drop box is opened, then an entry regarding received cheques bound to be incorporated in the registers maintained by bank concerned. So OPs could have produced the register pertaining to date of opening of drop box in question for establishing that cheque was dropped by complainant on 05.04.2016 and not on 04.04.2016. No such register or record produced and as such best evidence available with OPs withheld for establishing that cheque was dropped on 05.04.2016. For withholding of this best available evidence and for taking false plea regarding overwriting of date on counterfoil Ex.C-2, case of complainant is fully believable that he dropped the cheque on 04.04.2016. Even if assuming for arguments sake that cheque was dropped on 05.04.2016, despite that memo of dishonour Ex.C-3 containing information regarding dishonour of cheque must have been issued on 06.04.2016 i.e. on the next date of receipt of cheque. Even then there remains delay of 2 days in issue of return memo Ex.C-3. That delay of 2 days itself has remained unexplained and as such also there is deficiency in service on part of OPs in not returning the cheque within 24 hours of its receipt. Certainly complainant on the basis of cheque in question can file suit for recovery against the person who issued the cheque and as such loss of complainant will be to the extent of bearing of expenses on civil litigation. Though remedy of complainant for filing complaint u/s 138 and 142 of N.I. Act against the person issuing the cheque under provisions of Negotiable Instrument Act has been barred after expiry of validity of cheque, but remedy of filing of suit certainly will remain because the person who issued the cheque bound by its promise of paying Rs.1.00 lakh as made through cheque Ex.C-1. So, compensation for mental harassment and agony and of litigation expenses liable to be assessed by keeping in view these factors in mind.

7.             After going through Para No.25.4 of Master Circular on Customer Service –UCBs No. RBI/2015-16/61 DCBR.CO.BPD.(PCB).MC No.15/12.05.001/2015-16 dated 01.07.2015, it is made out that the banks have to conform to the time frame for collection of cheques and submission of information regarding honour or dishonour of cheque. As per Para 25.4 of this Master Circular for local cheques, credit and debit has to be given on the same day or at the most on the next day.  As per Clause 25.4 of this circular, if there is any delay in collection of the cheque, then the cheque collection policy of the bank should include the compensation payable for the delayed period. There is nothing on record in this case to show as to where from the amount of cheque Ex.C-1 in question was to be collected by OP bank and as such it is not made out as to whether collection of cheque amount was to be done from outstation or not. However, by keeping in view contents of Ex.C-3 regarding instrument being outdated/stale, it can be said as if the present cheque was a local cheque. By keeping in view that fact in mind, and in view of the fact that credit/debit of the cheque information provided after 4 days of its deposit through Ex.C-3, certainly complainant is entitled for compensation on account of delay in giving information regarding status of collected cheque.

8.             Para 25.5 of above pointed Master Circular provides that for ensuring the time schedule being followed by the branches, clear cut staff accountability for the delay should be held. In Para 25.5 of the Master Circular, it has been laid that for ensuring this accountability, special register may be introduced to record the delayed collection for necessary action. That special register has not been produced in this case by OPs and as such complainant becomes entitled for compensation under CCP Scheme of the bank as laid in Para 25.4 of the Master Circular. In Para 25.6 of the Master Circular stress laid on concept of quick/fast collection service for collection of outstation instruments. Separate registers required to be maintained for local cheques and out station cheques for enabling the branch manager to exercise better supervision and remedial measures as per Para 25.6 (e) of Master Circular referred above. Record of those registers not at all produced by OPs and as such inference is obvious that delay on part of OPs was there and that is why they did not produce the registers maintained by them for showing the date of receipt of cheque or the date of forwarding of the same to the collecting bank. Para 25.8 of above referred Master Circular provides that banks will ensure that dishonoured instrument is returned/dispatched to the customer promptly without delay on the same day, but in any case within 24 hours. If this Para 25.8 of the Master Circular taken into consideration, then this means that information of dishonour of cheque through memo Ex.C-3 supplied on 08.04.2016, was not within 24 hours of return of cheque. Date of receipt and of return of cheque in question not disclosed by OPs, despite the fact that it was their responsibility to maintain the relevant registers referred above. That suppression of facts leads to the only inference that actually delay on part of OPs took place resulting in non encashment of cheque. So complainant entitled for compensation for mental harassment and agony of Rs.20,000/- atleast and also to litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/-, payment of which must be made within specified time, failing which OPs must pay interest @ 7% per annum on the adjudged amounts with effect from today till payment. Copy of the Master Circular referred above extracted from the goggle internet search is made part of the file.

9.             Mere presentation of cheque at earliest after date of its issue is no ground for denying the relief to complainant, more so when deficiency in service on part of OPs is proved because the information regarding honour or dishonour of cheque not supplied within 24 hours of its presentation on 04.04.2016 through memo Ex.C-3. Even if assuming for arguments sake that the counterfoils like Ex.C-2 remains available with the bank, despite that it was duty of the OP bank to supply information of dishonour of cheque within 24 hours, which must have been supplied by 06.04.2016, even if assuming for arguments sake that the cheque was received by OP bank on 05.04.2016. However, that information through memo Ex.C-3 supplied only on 08.04.2016 and as such fault lays with OPs.

10.            No other point argued.

11.            As a sequel of above discussion, the complaint allowed in terms that OPs will pay Rs.20,000/- (Rs. Twenty Thousand only) as compensation for mental agony and harassment, but Rs.5,000/- (Rs. Five Thousand only) more as  litigation expenses to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order, failing which OPs will pay interest @ 7% per annum on the above referred amounts with effect from today till payment. Certified copies of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.  File be indexed and consigned to record room.

Announced

September 13, 2018.

                                                                (G.K. Dhir)

                                                                President

(Amrinder Singh Sidhu)

Member

(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)

Member