DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.
Complaint No. 656
Instituted on: 11.12.2017
Decided on: 21.05.2018
Dr. Zainul Eba aged about 44 years son of Sh. Shafiq Hussain, Assistant Professor, Department of Parshian, Urdu and Arabic, Punjabi University, Patiala, posted at Regional Center, Nawab Sher Mohammad Khan Institute, Malerkotla, District Sangrur.
..Complainant
Versus
State Bank of Patiala (now State Bank of India) through The Chief Manager, Main Branch, Shree Hanuman Mandir, Malekotla, District Sangrur.
..Opposite party
For the complainant : Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate.
For OP : Shri Ashi Goyal, Adv.
Quorum: Sukhpal Singh Gill, President
Sarita Garg, Member
Order by : Sarita Garg, Member:
1. Dr. Zainul Eba, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite party (referred to as OP in short) on the ground that the complainant is working as Assistant Professor in Department of Parshian, Urdu and Arabic, Punjabi University Patiala and is posted at Regional Centre, Nawab Sher Mohammad Khan Institute Malerkotla and has opened a saving bank account number 651500065406 with Op number 1. Further case of the complainant is that he is also an External Examiner of University of the Punjab, Lahore (Pakistan). The complainant being the external examiner got PH. D. thesis from University of the Punjab, Lahore (Pakistan) for checking and in lieu of the services of the complainant, the University of Punjab, Lahore paid $ 300 to the complainant through cheque/demand draft which was payable at New Campus, Punjab University, Lahore. Further case of the complainant is that the complainant received a cheque/demand draft number 0167787 dated 16.4.2015 for $ 300 from University of Punjab, Lahore (Pakistan) vide letter dated 17.4.2015 and the complainant presented the said cheque to the OP for its collection, but the same was not credited in the account of the complainant. Further case of the complainant is that though he visited the OP for many times to know the whereabouts of the cheque, but the OP vide letter dated 6.5.2016 informed the complainant that the cheque in question has been lost, as such, neither the cheque was credited in the account of the complainant nor the same was returned. Further case of the complainant is that by this way, the complainant has been harassed in the hands of the Op and as such the OP is deficient in rendering its service.
2. In reply filed by the OP, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and that the complainant has concealed the material facts from this form, that the complaint is not maintainable and that the complainant has filed the present complaint on wrong belief and assertion against the OP and that the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious in nature. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant is having a saving bank account in question. It is further stated that the complainant presented the demand draft number 0167787 dated 16.4.2015 for US$ 300 for collection and the same was despatched by the OP for collection from Trade Finance Central Processing Centre, New Delhi through courier vide its despatch number 1948 dated 8.5.2015, but the same was lost by the courier and it never reached to the TFCPC Branch. It is further stated that it was not in the hands of the OP and as such it is not a deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Lastly, the OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with special costs.
3. The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-8 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP has produced Ex.OP1 affidavit and Ex.OP2 copy of despatch register and closed evidence.
4. We have very carefully perused the pleadings of the parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits part acceptance, for these reasons.
5. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the documents placed on record, we are of the opinion that the complainant comes under the definition of ‘consumer’ and this Forum has the jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint.
6. In the present case the dispute is only about the demand draft in question bearing number 0167787 dated 16.4.2015 which was deposited by the complainant with the OP was neither credited in the account of the complainant nor returned with any of the remarks, rather the case of the complainant is that the same was lost by the OP in transit while the same was sent for collection to the TFCPC branch New Delhi. It is an admitted fact between the parties that the cheque in question has been lost. Further case of the complainant is that though he requested the University of Punjab, Lahore Pakistan to issue a fresh demand draft, but he did not receive any response, as such, it is proved on record that the complainant has suffered a lot financially as well as mentally due to the act of the OP. There are so many other ways available with the complainant for recovery of the amount, but it is beyond any doubt that the OP is deficient in service by losing the demand draft of the complainant. As such, we are of the considered opinion that the OP is deficient in service for which the OP is liable to pay compensation.
7. In view of the facts mentioned above, we allow the complaint partly and direct OP to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.10,000/- on account of compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment and further an amount of Rs.5000/- on account of litigation expenses.
8. This order of ours be complied with within a period of 30 days of receipt of copy of this order. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.
Pronounced.
May 21, 2018.
(Sukhpal Singh Gill)
President
(Sarita Garg)
Member
