DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA
CC.No.245 of 05-06-2013
Decided on 09-12-2013
Gagandeep Singh aged about 25 years S/o Gurmel Singh R/o Near Bus Stand, VPO Kishangarh, Tehsil Nihal Singh Wala, District Moga.
........Complainant
Versus
1.State Bank of India, Branch Bhagta Bhai Ka, District Bathinda, through its Branch Manager.
2.State Bank of India, Head Office, 8th floor, State Bank Bhawan, Madama Cama Road, near Vidhan Bhawan, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021, through its Managing Director/Manager.
3.State Bank of India, Main Branch, Kikkar Bazaar, Bathinda, through its Branch Manager.
.......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt.Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President.
Sh.Amarjeet Paul, Member.
Smt.Sukhwinder Kaur, Member.
Present:-
For the Complainant: Sh.Deepak Sehgal, counsel for the complainant.
For Opposite parties: Sh.Naveen Goyal, counsel for opposite parties.
ORDER
VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:-
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (Here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). The brief facts of the complaint are that on 4.10.2012, the complainant has deposited an account payee cheque of Rs.4406/- in his account bearing No.32342502890 with the opposite party No.1 for its encashment, issued by the learned Court of JMIC, Rampura Phool as refund of court fee of a pronote case. The opposite party No.1 assured the complainant that the payment of the abovesaid cheque would be paid to him with in a day or two after its clearance. The complainant visited the opposite party No.1 to collect the amount of the abovesaid cheque, but the opposite parties did not release the cheque amount, rather have been putting the matter off on one or the other pretext and have been making lame excuses that the abovesaid cheque has yet not been encashed. The complainant visited the opposite party No.1 and enquired about the encashment of the abovesaid cheque, but to no effect. The complainant came to know that the opposite parties have lost the abovesaid original cheque, due to which the same could not be got encashed. The payment of the abovesaid cheque has not been received by the complainant till date. The complainant further alleged that he number of times visited the learned Court of JMIC, Rampura Phool to re-issue the abovesaid cheque, but it claimed the original cheque for its satisfaction. The complainant visited the office of the opposite party No.1 continuously for the last more than 6/7 months, but to no avail and later on the opposite parties disclosed about the loss of the abovesaid cheque and have not released him the amount till date. Hence the complainant has filed the present complaint to seek the directions to the opposite parties to release the amount of the abovesaid cheque alongwith cost and compensation.
2. The opposite party Nos.1 and 2 after appearing before this Forum have filed their joint written statement and pleaded that the complainant has deposited one cheque of Rs.4406/- in his account with them for its clearance. The opposite party Nos.1 and 2 sent the abovesaid cheque for its clearance to the opposite party No.3 i.e. State Bank of India, Main Branch, Bathinda, in this way they fulfilled their duty and provided the proper service to the complainant. Thus there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party Nos.1 and 2.
3. The opposite party No.3 has filed its separate written statement and pleaded that the true facts are that one cheque of Rs.4406/- has been received by it from the opposite party No.1 and accordingly, the opposite party No.3 has sent the same to State Bank of Patiala, Civil Lines, Bathinda for its clearance. The abovesaid cheque has been returned by State Bank of Patiala with the remarks 'Not Drawn on us'. Accordingly, the abovesaid cheque has been further sent to the opposite party No.1 by the opposite party No.3, in this way the opposite party No.3 has fulfilled its duty and there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part.
4. The parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.
5. Arguments heard. The record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused.
6. The submission of the complainant is that the abovesaid cheque has been issued by the learned Court of JMIC, Rampura Phool for the refund of the court fee in a pronote case for Rs.4406/-. On 4.10.2012, the complainant has deposited an account payee cheque of Rs.4406/- in his account bearing No.32342502890 with the opposite party No.1 for its encashment, but the opposite party No.1 did not release the amount of the abovesaid cheque despite his various visits. Later on the complainant came to know that the opposite parties have lost the abovesaid original cheque, due to which the same could not be got encashed. The period of 6-7 months has already lapsed, yet the opposite parties have failed to give the cheque amount to the complainant. The complainant further submitted that as per the directions and letter circulated by Reserve Bank of India to all the banks of India, the cheque of customer must be encashed within 7 days, but till date the abovesaid cheque is not traceable. As the abovesaid cheque has been issued by the learned Court of JMIC, Rampura Phool, District Bathinda as refund of court fee of a pronote case, the abovesaid cheque cannot be dishonoured.
7. On the other hand the submission of the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 is that the complainant has deposited one cheque of Rs.4406/- in his account with them for its clearance and the same has been sent to the opposite party No.3 i.e. State Bank of India, Main Branch, Bathinda, in this way they fulfilled their duty and provided the proper service to the complainant.
8. The submission of the opposite party No.3 is that one cheque of Rs.4406/- has been received by it from the opposite party No.1 and accordingly, the opposite party No.3 has sent the same to State Bank of Patiala, Civil Lines, Bathinda for its clearance. The abovesaid cheque has been returned by State Bank of Patiala with the remarks 'Not Drawn on us'. Accordingly, the abovesaid cheque has been further sent to the opposite party No.1 by the opposite party No.3, in this way the opposite party No.3 has fulfilled its duty.
9. The opposite parties admitted the fact that the complainant has presented the cheque of Rs.4406/- to the opposite party No.1 and the same has been sent to the opposite party No.3 for its clearance, but it has been sent back to the opposite party No.1 with the remarks 'Not Drawn on us'. As the abovesaid cheque has neither been returned to the complainant nor its amount has paid to him, thus this amounts to deficiency in service. On the other hand the opposite party No.1 has placed on file postal receipt, Ex.OP1/1 regarding sending of the abovesaid cheque to the opposite party No.3; copy of dispatch register, Ex.OP1/2 and the collection inquiry, Ex.OP1/3; in this collection inquiry the status of the cheque bearing No.436439 dated 31.10.2012 for the amount of Rs.4406/- is shown as dishonoured. The opposite party No.1 has also placed on file a letter S.L. No.:-BM/16 dated 22.2.2013, Ex.OP1/4, written by the Branch Manager of State Bank of India, Bhagta Bhai Ka to the Chief Manager of State Bank of India, Bathinda, in this letter the Branch Manager has specifically mentioned that 'SC No.76466368 for Rs.4406/- dated 31.10.2012, cheque No.436439 drawn bank SBOP', the Branch Manager has further mentioned in this letter 'We entered the above SC on 31.10.2012 and it was dishonoured by you on 7.11.2012 but you did not return the cheque to our branch. Kindly returned the cheque soon'. This is the internal correspondence between the Branch Manager of State Bank of India, Bhagta Bhai Ka and the Chief Manager of State Bank of India, Bathinda. Again vide Ex.OP1/5, the Branch Manager of State Bank of India, Bhagta Bhai Ka sent a reminder. Thereafter again a letter BM No.480 dated 15.3.2013, Ex.OP1/6 has been sent by the Branch Manager of State Bank of India, Bhagta Bhai Ka to the Chief Manager of State Bank of India, Kikkar Bazaar, Bathinda, in which it has been specifically mentioned that despite their repeated reminders and personal visits the above noted cheque has not been returned by Kikkar Bazaar branch, Bathinda till date and requested him to look into the matter personally because the customer pressurized them either for credit of the above noted cheque or cheque with objection memo if the cheque is dishonoured. It is quite clear that the opposite party No.1 has made the efforts on its part to receive back the abovesaid cheque from the opposite party No.3 and the opposite party No.1 repeatedly requested the opposite party No.3 to send the abovesaid cheque to it but the opposite party No.3 has given the simple reply that the abovesaid cheque has been returned by State Bank of Patiala with the remarks 'Not Drawn on us'; the same has been returned to the opposite party No.1 and has filed the affidavit of Sh.Sunil Kumar Malhotra, Chief Manager of State Bank of India, Main Branch, Bathinda, Ex.OP3/1, to this effect.
10. The reply of the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 jointly and 3 separately show that the opposite party No.1 has done the correspondence with the opposite party No.3 to return the abovesaid cheque, but till date as per record placed on file the abovesaid cheque has not been received back from the opposite party No.3.
11. From the facts, circumstances and evidence placed on file we are of the considered view that the opposite party No.3 has filed its reply mentioning that 'Not Drawn on us' and sent the abovesaid cheque to the opposite party No.1, the version of the opposite party No.3 seems to be false. If for argument sake it is believed that the abovesaid cheque has been returned by the opposite party No.3 to the opposite party No.1, but it has not reached the opposite party No.1, which clearly shows that the abovesaid cheque has been either lost in transit or lost in the office of the opposite party No.3. Moreover Ex.OP1/4 to Ex.OP1/6 are the internal correspondence between the opposite party No.1 and the opposite party No.3, the complainant is not aware about the same. No letter has ever been written or any information has been sent to the complainant whether his cheque has been dishonoured or lost.
12. As discussed above the period of 6-7 months has already lapsed, but neither the abovesaid cheque has been returned to the complainant nor its amount has been paid to him, whereas the maximum period for the collection of outstation cheque is 7/10/14 days and the local cheques to be given on the same day or the next day. The support can be sought by the precedent laid down by the Hon'ble National Commission, New Delhi, in case titled 2008 (III) CPJ 159 (NC) Atul Nanda & Anr. Vs. Reserve Bank of India & Ors., wherein it has been held:-
“Consumer Protection Act, 1986-Section 2(1)(g)-Banking and Financial Services-Cheque-Encashment of-Deficiency in service in giving credit to payee, alleged-Contention, large float enjoyed by Banks for their benefits-Bank policies to be framed as per RBI circular-Credit and debit of local cheques to be given on same day or next day-For collection of outstation cheques banks take maximum period upto 7/10/14 days-Interest payable to payee for delay beyond 7/10/14 days-Directions given to banks.”
The complainant has requested to seek the refund of Rs.4406/-, whereas the complaint for recovery of the cheque amount does not lie under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, in this regard the support can be sought by the precedent laid down by the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case titled Canara Bank Vs. B.Muraleedharan Nair Aswathi Enterprises, 2008 (II) CPJ 1 (NC), wherein it has been held:-
“......Cheque lost-Payment of cheque amount with interest directed by State Commission-Hence revision-Complaint for recovery of cheque amount not lie under Consumer Protection Act-Bank can be ordered to pay compensation on ground of deficiency in service, but not entire cheque amount-Gross deficiency in service on the part of bank proved-Compensation of Rs.30,000/- awarded-Order of State Commission modified accordingly.”
Further the support can also be sought by the precedent laid down by the Hon'ble Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur in case titled State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur Vs. Purushottam, 2008 (II) CPJ 535, wherein it has been held:-
“......Banking and Financial Services-Cheque lost in transit-Complaint allowed by Forum-Complainant held entitled to full cheque-Hence appeal-Bank held negligent as not taken proper care-Banker in collecting cheque, required to exercise same care which reasonable businessman would bring to bear in handling valuable negotiable instrument-Bank rightly held negligent in delivering services-Bank liable to pay some compensation but not entire cheque amount.”
The reliance can also be placed on the precedent laid down by the Hon'ble Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur in case titled Hari Ram Vs. SBBJ & Anr., 2010(3) CPC 107, wherein it has been held:-
“.....Two cheques with Rs.1 lacs each were deposited with bank of respondent No.1 who sent the same to payee bank for clearance-Cheques lost in transit-Neither cheques were returned nor amount of cheques was credited in complainant's account-deficiency in service well proved-Respondent No.1 is directed to pay total sum of Rs.20,000/- including compensation of Rs.10,000/- awarded by the District Forum-Appeal allowed.”
13. Therefore in view of what has been discussed above there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party Nos.1 and 3. Hence this complaint is accepted with Rs.10,000/- as cost and compensation against the opposite party Nos.1 and 3 and dismissed qua the opposite party No.2.
14. The compliance of this order be done within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.
15. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced in open Forum:-
09-12-2013
(Vikramjit Kaur Soni)
President
(Amarjeet Paul)
Member
(Sukhwinder Kaur)
Member
