Kulvir Singh complainant has filed the present complaint against the opposite parties U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (for short, C.P.Act.) seeking necessary directions to the opposite parties to make the payment of cheque amount i.e. Rs.1,05,000/- to him alongwith litigation expenses amounting to Rs.10,000/-. Opposite parties be further directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental and physical harassment suffered by him from the hands of the opposite parties, in the interest of justice.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that he is having Saving Bank Account No.65004717384 in the Bank. He is using the said Bank Account and is hiring the services of the opposite parties. Thus he is consumer of the opposite parties. One Jagtar Chand son of Sh.Anant Ram, resident of Ludhiana has issued a Cheque bearing No.00001 dated 29.10.2016 amounting to Rs.1,05,000/- from his Bank Account of Bank of Baroda, Branch PAU Ludhiana in his favour and the said cheque was valid for the period of three months as per the terms and conditions of the Negotiable Instrument Act. On 27.1.2017 he has visited the office of the opposite party no.1 and has presented the abovesaid cheuqe for its clearance in his account. He has requested the concerned dealing clerk of the opposite party no.1 with folded hands that the period of limitation of the said cheque is uptil 29.1.2017, so kindly send the said cheque to the banker i.e. Bank of Baroda for clearance, but the opposite party no.1 has not sent the said cheque for clearance uptil 29.1.2017, intentionally, willfully and deliberately and thereafter returned the same to him by asking him that the period of limitation has been expired. Thus, there is clear cut negligence on the part of the opposite parties in its service. He has suffered mental, physical agony at the hands of the opposite parties as now the said cheque has become invalid and Jagtar Chand has also become dishonest and refused to pay the said amount of Rs.1,05,000/- to him. Hence this complaint.
3 Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite parties who appeared through their counsel and filed their written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable as the complainant has not come to the court with clean hands and suppressed the material facts from this Ld.Forum. On merits, it was submitted that complainant has deposited cheque dated 29.10.2016 for clearance in the bank on 27.01.2017 knowingly that the validity of the cheque is three months only and on 28.01.2017, 29.01.2017 there was holiday being fourth Saturday and Sunday and during that period the date for encashment of the cheque was to be expired and the cheque can not been presented in clearance due to expiry period and if the same was presented by the opposite party, the same could not be encashed. The cheque can not be accepted by the computer system being stale cheque. The complainant has deliberately deposit the said cheque with the opposite party knowingly that the same is stale cheque and cannot be cleared within its validity. The complainant himself is a wrong doer and wants to take disadvantage of his own guilty as he has kept mum for a period of three months during the validity of the cheuqe and has deliberately and intentionally deposit the same during the expiry period. All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
4. Counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C1 alongwith other documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C4 and closed the evidence.
5. Counsel for the opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OP1, alongwith other documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP-4 and closed the evidence.
6. We have duly heard the learned counsels for both the sides on the points of Banking Law, Custom & Procedure and have also minutely examined the related documents/records with requisite care & caution on the points of facts, as placed on the records of the current proceedings (before us). We find that the present complaint has prompted as a result of the alleged failure of the opposite party1 Bank Branch to promptly collect (vide local Clearing House) the proceeds of the complainant’s cheque dated 29.10.2016 for Rs.1,05,000/- on the date of deposit, itself i.e., on 27.01.2017, as its validity was expiring on 28.01.2017.
7. We find that the deposited cheque (Ex.C4/Ex.OP2) in question stands duly drawn in the complainant’s favor on 29.10.2016 valid for ‘3’ months from the date of issue i.e., up to 28.01.2017 and stands duly deposited (Ex.C2/Ex.C3/ Ex.OP3/Ex.OP4) in the complainant (payee’s) Savings A/c # 65004717384 with the OP Bank on 27.01.2016 allegedly with firm request to collect it on the same day since the same has been valid up to 28.01.2016, only but however sans any evidence of the alleged request and any assurance/confirmation/commitment in response (by the Bank) as to its collection within its validity period.
8. The opposite party Bank, in turn, has admittedly pleaded/deposed vide its written statement/affidavit Ex.OP1 that the cheque in question was routinely dropped/deposited by the complainant in local clearing for collection on 27.01.2017 but could not be presented to the local paying Branch of Bank of Baroda on 28.01.2017/29.01.2017 both being Bank Holidays on account of 4th Saturday and Sunday, respectively; and the Bank’s Computer Network will not accept it in clearing for next day (30.01.2017) as having fallen ‘stale’ in the meantime. Further, alleged that the factum of the cheque’s validity has been in the active notice and full knowledge of the complainant as the cheque in question was first presented in clearing (returned unpaid) on 05.11.2016 (as evidenced per the clearing stamp on reverse) and has been in his custodial possession since then and he further knowingly timed its deposit to manage/ facilitate its ‘un-paid’ return and subsequent transfer of liability upon the collecting Bank. Somehow, that does not convince us in any way and that does not assist/help the OP bank, either; who even otherwise have convincingly clarified their stand, above.
9. In the light of the all above, we are of the considered opinion that the present complaint is devoid of all statutory merit under the adjudicatory Act and thus ORDER for the dismissal of the present complaint with however no orders as to its costs.
10. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record.
(Naveen Puri)
President
ANNOUNCED: (Jagdeep Kaur)
December, 04 2017. Member
*MK*
