O R D E R :-( per Mr. B.R. Chandel, President )
Admittedly, the complainant Surjit Singh Pathania is the holder of Bank Account No. 30146051252 dated 03-03-2008 Annexure C-2 of the opposite party No.1. He received an amount of Rupees 1,95,044/- on account of subscription towards his General Provident Fund from the opposite parties No.2 and 3 on the strength of cheque Annexure C-6 dated 31-01-2008 which was valid upto 31-03-008. The complainant deposited the said cheque with the opposite party No.1 on 03-03-2008. The opposite party No.1 credited the said amount in his said account on 04-03-2008 as per statement of account Annexure R-2 showing the total balance in his said account of Rupees 6,92,491/- as on 04-03-2008. The opposite party No.1 sent the said cheque for collection to State Bank of India Ludhiana on04-03-208. But the State Bank of India Ludhiana sent back the said cheque to the opposite parties on 15-03-2008 for collection through opposite party No.4, as a result of which the opposite party No.1 debited the so credited amount of Rupees 1,95,044/- from the account of the complainant and again sent the cheque for collection to opposite party No.4 and again credited the said amount in the account of the complainant as per statement of account Annexure R-2. On 23-04-2008 the opposite party No.1 received the cheque with the objection that its validity period had expired. On receipt of the said cheque the opposite party No.1 intimated the complainant to collect the cheque and accordingly the complainant received the cheque on 26-04-2008 for re-validation. The said cheque was produced by the complainant for collection 22-12-2009, upon which the amount of Rupees 1,95,044/- was credited by the opposite party No.1 in the account of the complainant as per the statement of accounts Annexure R-2.
2. In view of the above stated undisputed facts the complainant on the strength of this complaint has claimed that the opposite parties be ordered to pay compensation of Rupees 20,000/- along with cost of the complaint on the grounds that the opposite party No.1 knowingly and intentionally returned the cheque in question to the complainant without there being any reason despite the fact that the cheque was valid till 31-03-2010 and thereafter the complainant sent the aforesaid cheque to the opposite party No.3 for re-validation , but the same was again received back by the complainant after its re-validation on 21-12-2009 i.e. after a long period of One year Nine months which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties due to which the complainant has suffered monetary loss, harassment and mental tension.
3. The opposite party No.1 disputed the said claim and has set up the defence that it had sent the cheque for collection to Ludhiana, but State Bank of India Ludhiana on 04-08-2008 itself after crediting the said amount in the account of the complainant, but the same was returned to it with the advice to collect the amount through service branch Ludhiana i.e. opposite party No.4 and accordingly the said cheque was again sent for collection on 15-03-2008 by again crediting the said amount in the account of the complainant. But thereafter the opposite party No.1 received the said cheque back on 23-04-2008 with the objection that its validity had expired, hence the same was handed over to the complainant for re-validation on 26-04-2008 and thereafter the complainant presented the same for collection on 22-12-2009 and on the same date the amount was credited in his account, hence it has not committed any deficiency in service. Although, the opposite parties No.2 and 3 have been proceeded against exparte, but they have sent the reply and have set up the defence that the said cheque was received for re-validation by them on 22-09-2009 and after re-validation the same was sent to the complainant, hence they have committed no deficiency in service.
4. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India , branch office Civil Line, Firozpur, Ludhiana, Punjab, has been impleaded as opposite party No.4 during the pendency of this complaint, hence the notice of the complaint was sent to the opposite party No.4, but the opposite party No.4 has been proceeded against exparte.
5. There is no dispute that cheque in question was sent for collection by the opposite party No.1 to State Bank of India, Ludhiana, on 04-03-2009, but the same was received without collection on 23-04-2008 with the objection that the cheque was overdue and was not valid and as such the same was handed over to the complainant by opposite party No.1 on 26-04-2008. The complainant has alleged that the opposite party No.1 knowingly and intentionally returned the aforesaid cheque to him despite the fact that the aforesaid cheque was valid till 31-03-2008, but has failed to prove the said fact. It is not disputed that the opposite party No.3 credited the amount of cheque in the account of complainant on 03-03-2008 and sent the cheque for collection on 04-03-2008 and the same was received by it on 23-04-2008 with the objection and returned to the complainant by opposite party No.1 for re-validation on 26-04-2008. State Bank of India has not been impleaded as a party in the present complaint which could have explained as to when it had received the cheque for collection and how the period of its validation expired. It could not be ruled out that the cheque sent for collection through post by the opposite party No.1 reached late in the office the State Bank of India, Ludhiana.
6. The complainant has again claimed that thereafter he sent the cheque to the opposite party No.3 for re-validation , but the same was received after its re-validation on 21-1-2009 after a long period of One year Nine month. The opposite parties No.2 and 3 have stated in the reply that the same was received on 22-09-2009. It is not disputed by the complainant that he has received the same from opposite party No.1 on 26-04-2008. The complainant has failed to prove the date of which he sent the cheque in question for re-validation and in absence of such proof there is no evidence on record to conclude that the opposite parties No.2 and 3 have caused delay in re-validating the cheque in question. After re-validation the cheque was presented by the complainant before the opposite party No.1 on 22-12-2009 and on the same date the amount was credited in the account of the complainant as per statement of accounts Annexure R-2.
7. In view of the evidence discussed and findings recorded above, the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, hence the complaint is bound to fail.
RELIEF:
In view of the findings recorded above, the complaint is dismissed. No orders as to cost. Let certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost, as per rules. The file, after its registration and due completion be consigned to the records.
ANNOUNCED AND SIGNED IN OPEN COURT
ON THIS THE 12th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2015
(B.R. Chandel )
President
(Th. Digvijay Singh) ( Sushma Sharma)
Member Member
