Haryana

Ambala

CC/388/2017

M/s Niranjan Parshad - Complainant(s)

Versus

State Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

Ankush Gupta

04 Dec 2018

ORDER

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

                                           Complaint No. 388 of 2017.

   Date of Institution: 10.11.2017.

   Date of final order: 04.12.2018.

 

M/s Niranjan Parshad Jai Gopal through its partner Sanjay Aggarwal s/o late Jai Gopal r/o Old Anaj Mandi, Ambala City.

                                                                        ….Complainant.

                                       Versus

 

1. State Bank of India, GT Road, Ambala City through its Branch Manager.
2. Axis Bank Ltd. Manav Chowk, Ambala City through its Branch Manager.

....Opposite parties.

                          Complaint under section 12 of

 

Before:     Sh.Dina Nath Arora, President.

                Dr.Sushma Garg, Member.  

 

Present:   Sh.Ankush Gupta, Adv. for complainant.

               Sh.H.S.Garg, Adv. for OP No.1.

               Sh.Navneet Mehta, Adv. for OP No.2.          

                             

ORDER:

 

             The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is a firm under the name and style of M/s Niranjan Parshad Jai Gopal having bank account with Op No.1. it had presented a cheque No.000098 amounting to Rs.1,24,200/- drawn on Axis Bank with Op No.1 for clearance which further sent the same to Op No.2 but the said cheque was neither credited/cleared in its account nor returned to it with any remarks. The complainant contacted Op No.1 and came to know that same has not been received from Op No.2. After that the complainant visited Op No.2 where it was disclosed that the cheque has already been returned to Op No.1. The Op No.1 issued a certificate dated 19.07.2017 certifying that this is to certify that on 29.05.2017 the Niranjan Parshad Jai Gopal has deposited the cheque No.000098 of Rs.1,24,200/- in clearing in our branch. We have sent this cheque in CTS clearing on same day. This cheque was sent to SBI Main Branch through paper to follow report for further clearing house. The concerned cheque was returned by AXIS Bank on 30.05.2017  in the system but AXIS Bank has not returned the physical cheque to our main branch despite of vigorous follow up on telephone but they has not returned the physical cheque. The complainant has suffered economic loss, physical as well as mental harassment due to deficiency in service on the part of Ops. In evidence, the complainant has tendered affidavit Annexure CW1/A and documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C4.

2.             On notice OPs appeared and filed their separate replies. Op No.1 in its reply has submitted that the complainant has filed the present complaint by concealing the material facts from this Forum. The cheque in question was sent to Axis bank for clearance on 29.05.2017 but the same was returned by the Axis bank on 30.05.2017 in computer system. The original cheque was never send by the Axis bank to the SBI despite several requests. The complainant has not suffered any loss due to deficiency in service on its part. Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

3.             OP No.2 in its reply has taken many preliminary objections such as cause of action, maintainability, estoppal, mis-joinder of necessary parties and suppression of material facts etc. It has been submitted that cheque in question has already been returned to OP No.1 against receipt on 02.06.2017. There is no deficiency in service on the part of Op No.2 and the Op No.1 has issued false certificate.  Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. In evidence, the OPs have tendered affidavits Annexure RA, Annexure RW2/A and documents Annexure R1 to Annexure R5.

3.             We have heard learned counsel of both the parties and also perused the record placed on file.

4.             It is not disputed that complainant had presented the cheque No.000098 amounting to Rs.1,24,200/- drawn on Axis Bank with Op No.1 for clearance which further sent the same to Op No.2 but the said cheque was neither credited/cleared in its account nor returned. OP No.1 in its reply has submitted that the cheque was sent to Op No.2 for clearance but the cheque was returned by the Axis bank on 30.05.2017 in computer system only and no original cheque was sent by the Axis bank/OP No.2 to OP No.1. On the other hand Op No.2 has submitted that the cheque in question has been returned to the Op No.1 as per Annexure R1 on 02.06.2017. On the other hand Op No.1 denying the receiving of cheque in question and OP No.1 also deny Annexure R1 dated 02.06.2017. It seems that it is inter-se dispute between Op No.1 and Op No.2 due to this reason, the complainant cannot be made sufferer. It is clear from the record the cheque has not been received by the complainant in any manner. Complainant is maintaining the account with OP No.1 and has deposited the cheque in question for encashment with Op No.1 and being customer of Op No.1, bank is bound to provide the sufficient service to their consumer including complainant but Op No.1 has failed to do so.  It was the duty of the Ops to either to encash the cheque or to return the same to the complainant unpaid but till today the same has not been delivered to the complainant resulting into presentation of the complaint before this Forum for unnecessary harassment.                 

5.             In the present complaint the complainant has prayed for paying the cheque amount of Rs.1,24,200/- alongwith compensation.

                Hon’ble National Commission in case law titled as State Bank of India Vs. Untha Lakshmi Kumari (2009) CPJ 198 (NC) has held that cheque misused/encashed, not moved-Bank not liable to pay cheque amount-order of State Commission set de- Compensation for deficiency in vice on part of bank awarded. The other case titled as Canara Bank Vs. Sudhir Ahuja 1 (2007) CPJ 1 (NC) in which it was held that neither amount credited nor cheque returned-Deficiency in service proved-Bank liable to pay some amount of compensation and not entire amount of cheque-order of State Commission directing OP to pay entire cheque amount not legally sustainable-OP liable to pay Rs.5,000/- compensation.

6.                     In view of the above said discussion, it is proved that the OP No.1 is negligent in performing the duty and great deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.1 is proved because it has not redress the grievance of the complainant in not returning the cehque in question. In view of the law discussed above (Supra), the complainant is only entitled for compensation. The complaint is partly allowed with costs which is assessed at Rs.5,000/- and the compensation is assessed at Rs.35,000/- against OP No.1 only. Since the complainant is not the consumer of the Op No.2, therefore, complaint against it stands dismissed. The opposite party No.1 is directed as under:-

1. To pay a sum of Rs.35,000/-(Rs.Thirty five thousand only) as compensation to the complainant within 30 days  after receiving the certified copy of this order failing which the amount would carry interest @ 9 % per annum till realization of the amount.  However, OP No.1 is at liberty to initiate proceedings as per law for the recovery of the said amount from OP No.2.

 

Copy of order be supplied to the parties under the rule. File be consigned to the record-room after due compliance.

Announced on: 04.12.2018

 

                                                                 (D.N.Arora)

                        (Dr.Sushma Garg)                President,

                 Member                          District Consumer Disputes                                                                       Redressal Forum, Ambala