Punjab

Sangrur

CC/177/2019

Guru Nanak Furniture - Complainant(s)

Versus

State Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Sushil Kumar

06 Mar 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .

 

                                                                        Complaint No.177

 Instituted on:   24.04.2019

                                                                        Decided on:     06.03.2023

 

 

Guru Nanak Furniture House, Sulargharat through its Prop. Jaspal Singh aged 43 years son of Amrik Singh, resident of Village Sulargharat, Tehsil Sunam, Distt. Sangrur.                        

                                                         …. Complainant.     

                                                 Versus

 

1.             State Bank of India Branch Sullargharat through its Branch Manager 148035.

2.             State Bank of India, Branch Sai Market, Patiala through its Branch Manager/Managing Director 147001.

3.             State Bank of India, 22-B, Chandigarh through its Executive Officer 160022.

4.             HDFC Bank Limited, Branch VPO Khadial, Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur through its Branch Manager 148028.

             ….Opposite parties. 

 

For complainant         : Shri Sushil Kumar, Adv.              

For the OPs 1 to 3     : Shri Ashe Kumar Goyal, Adv.

            For OP No.4              : Shri S.S.Punia, Adv.

 

Quorum                                           

JOT NARANJAN SINGH GILL: PRESIDENT

SARITA GARG,                                  : MEMBER

KANWALJEET SINGH             : MEMBER

 

ORDER

JOT NARANJAN SINGH GILL, PRESIDENT.

1.             Complainant firm through its proprietor Shri Jaspal Singh has approached this Forum/Commission on the ground that the complainant has a bank account bearing number 65152338077 with the OP number 1 since long. In the present case, the grievance of complainant is that he presented a cheque bearing number 000050 dated 15.10.2018 of Rs.57,500/- drawn on HDFC Bank to OP number 1 for encashment, but the OP number 4 returned the above said cheque unpaid to OP number 2 and OP number 2 vide its memo dated 25.1.2019 had returned the aforesaid cheque with the remarks “31-Instrument out dated/stale” and in this regard the aforesaid cheque alongwith memo dated 25.1.2019 had been returned by OP number 1 to the complainant.  Further the complainant has alleged that due to the negligence of the OPs, the cheque in question presented by the complainant could not be encashed. The complainant has further alleged that the OPs are jointly and severally liable to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.57,500/- alongwith interest. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.57,500/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum and further to pay compensation for Rs.1,00,000/- on account of mental tension, agony, pain and  harassment and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.             Upon being served, OPs number 1 to 3 filed joint written reply taking preliminary objections that the complainant has not come to this Commission with clean hands as he has suppressed true and material facts as the OPs are the custodial of public money at large, that the complainant has no occasion to file the present complaint and that the complaint is not maintainable before this Commission. It is further stated that the complaint is false, frivolous, misconceived and vexatious in nature. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant presented the cheque in question on 11.1.2019 and on the same date the OP number 1 entered the particulars of the cheque into its computer system for processing and the system generated packing list on 12.1.2019 at about 3.20 am and 12.1.2019 and 13.1.2019 were holidays on account of second Saturday and Sunday and bank was closed for business and on 14.1.2019 the OP number 1 dispatched the cheque in question on its collecting branch situated at Sai Market, Patiala, thereafter the OP number 2 received back the cheque in question from drawee bank/branch as unpaid due to instrument being outdated/stale and accordingly the complainant was informed vide return memo dated 25.1.2019. It is stated further that there is no fault on the part of the bank/OPs as the cheque was going to expire on 14.1.2019, rather it seems that the complainant filed the present complaint just to scapegoat his own act and conduct. It is denied that the OPs are liable to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.57,500/- to the complainant.

3.             In reply filed by OP number 4, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant has unnecessarily dragged the OP into unwanted litigation, that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint, that the complainant has not come to this Commission with clean hands. On merits, it is stated that the cheque in question was received by the OP with scan process having session on 24.1.2019 and the same was returned back to other OPs on 25.1.2019 as cheque was stale i.e. cheque was received by the OPs after expiry date, as the cheque was issued on 15.10.2018 and the same was valid for three months. It is admitted that the OPs returned the cheque vide memo dated 25.1.2019 as cheque was stale/outdated. However, any deficiency in service on the part of the OP number 4 has been denied and has prayed that the complaint be dismissed with special costs.

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant produced Ex.C-1 copy of account statement, Ex.C-2 copy of cheque in question, Ex.C-3 copy of memo, Ex.C-4 copy of aadhar card, Ex.C-5 affidavit of Jaspal Singh and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 1 to 3 has produced Ex.OP1to3/1 affidavit of Shri Bhawesh Kumar, Branch Manager of OP number 1, Ex.OP1to3/2 copy of packing list and Ex.OP1to 3/3 copy of courier delivery recipt and closed evidence. The learned counsel for OP number 4 has produced ExOP4/1 affidavit of Shri Pankaj Gupta, Branch Manager of HDFC Bank Limited and Ex.OP4/2 attested copy of document of  cheque  received and returned and closed evidence.

5.             We have gone through the pleadings put in by the parties along with their supporting documents with their valuable assistance.

6.             Learned counsel for the complainant has argued vehemently that the complainant is a consumer of the OPs as he had an account with the OP number 1 and accordingly he presented a cheque bearing number 000050 dated 15.10.2018 of Rs.57,500/- drawn on HDFC Bank to OP number 1 for encashment, but the OP number 4 returned the above said cheque unpaid to OP number 2 and OP number 2 vide its memo dated 25.1.2019 had returned the aforesaid cheque with the remarks “31-Instrument outdated/stale” and in this regard the aforesaid cheque alongwith memo dated 25.1.2019 had been returned by OP number 1 to the complainant.  Further the complainant has argued that due to the negligence of the OPs, the cheque in question presented by the complainant could not be encashed and as such, the Ops are liable to pay to the complainant the cheque amount alongwith compensation.

7.             On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 1 to 3 though admitted that the complainant presented the cheque in question on 11.1.2019 and on the same date the OP number 1 entered the particulars of the cheque into its computer system for processing and the system generated packing list on 12.1.2019 at about 3.20 AM and 12.1.2019 and 13.1.2019 were holidays as second Saturday and Sunday and bank was closed for business and on 14.1.2019 the OP dispatched the cheque in question on its collecting branch situated at Sai Market, Patiala, thereafter OP number 2 received back the cheque in question from drawee bank/branch as unpaid due to instrument being outdated/stale and accordingly the complainant was informed vide return memo dated 25.1.2019. It is contended further that there is no fault on the part of the bank/OPs as the cheque was going to expire on 14.1.2019, rather it seems that the complainant filed the present complaint just to scapegoat his own act and conduct.  The learned counsel for OP number 4 has contended vehemently that the cheque in question was received by the OP with scan process having session on 24.1.2019 and the same was returned back to other OPs on 25.1.2019 as cheque was stale i.e. cheque was received by the OPs after expiry date, as the cheque was issued on 15.10.2018 and the same was valid for three months only. It is admitted that the OPs returned the cheque vide memo dated 25.1.2019 as cheque was stale/outdated.  Lastly, the OP number 4 has prayed for dismissal of complaint qua OP number 4.

8.             After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the whole record, we find that the complainant deposited the cheque in question Ex.C-2 with the OP number 1 on 11.1.2019 for encashment, which was going to expire on 14.1.2019.  It is on the record that the cheque in question was sent to OP number 4 on 24.1.2019 by scan process by OP number 2 and thereafter the OP number 4 returned the cheque in question to OP umber 2 being it outdated/stale. It is worth mentioning here that the cheque in question became stale on 14.1.2019 itself whereas the OP number 2 sent the same to the OP number 4 for encashment on 24.1.2019.  The cheque in question was deposited by the complainant on 11.1.2019 with the OP number 1 for encashment. Since the cheque in question was going to expire on 14.1.2019, the OP number 1 was duty bound to present it immediately or otherwise the OP number 1 should apprise the complainant about the date of cheque or the OP number 1 should refuse to take the cheque as it was going to expire on 14.1.2019, but the OP number 1 is mum on the above said points.  There is no explanation from the side of OP number 1 that why before accepting the cheque on 11.1.2019, the OP number 1 did not return the cheque to the complainant.  We have also perused the cheque dated 15.10.2018 Ex.C-2, which clearly reveals that it is dated 15.10.2018 and its validity is of three months i.e. upto 14.1.2019 which has been clearly mentioned on the cheque itself. Ex.C-3 is the return memo report dated 25.1.2019 and Ex.C-5 is the affidavit of Jaspal Singh to support the allegations in the complaint.  On the other hand, the OP number 1 to 3 has produced Ex.OP1to3/1 affidavit of Shri Bhawesh Kumar Branch Manager of OP number 1 stating the whole story, but we are unable to go with it, as the OP number 1 failed to return the cheque at the very time of presenting to the complainant. Further we find no fault on the part of the OP number 4 as the cheque in question reached them only on  24.1.2019 through scan process, when it had already expired/stale.  Thus, we find it to be a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OP number 1.   Though the complainant has claimed the cheque amount from OP number 1, but we are unable to go with this contention of the complainant as the complainant can claim the amount from the person who had issued the cheque in question to the complainant.

9.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint partly and direct OP number 1 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5000/- as compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment and an amount of Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses. This order be complied with by the opposite parties within 60 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

10.            The complaint could not be decided within the statutory time period due to heavy pendency of cases

11.            A certified copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost as per rules. File be consigned to records.

                                Pronounced.

                                March 6, 2023.