Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/358/2010

Pawan Kumar S/o Mam Chand - Complainant(s)

Versus

State Bank Of Patiala - Opp.Party(s)

Kishore Kumar

21 Apr 2016

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE DISTT.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM YAMUNA NAGAR JAGADHRI

 

                                                                                               Complaint No. 358 of 2010.

                                                                                                Date of Instt. 19.04.2010.

                                                                                                Date of Decision:21.04.2016

Pawan Kumar aged about 32 years son of Sh. Mam Chand resident of Adarsh Colony, V.P.O. Mustfabad, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.                                                                                                                                                    ..Complainant

     Versus

1. State Bank of Patiala, Branch Office Mini Secretariat, Jagadhri through its Branch Manager.
2. M/s Dolphin Courier Service Agency, having its Shop/Office at 155, Chhoti Line, Yamuna Nagar through its Proprietor/ Manager.
3. Allahabad Bank, Branch Office Sadhaura, through its Branch Manager.

 

                                                                          ..Respondents.

Before:             SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG …………….    PRESIDENT

                        SH. S.C. SHARMA  …………………………MEMBER  

Present:       Sh. Ravi Bhushan, Advocate counsel for Complainant

                    Sh. B.S.Chauhan,  Advocate counsel for respondent No.1.

                    Respondent No.2 already ex-parte vide order dated 14.08.2012.

                    Sh. V.K.Rajoria, Advocate, counsel for OP No.3. 

ORDER   

1.                     The complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that he is having a saving bank account bearing No. 65026876098 with the respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred as OP No.1 Bank). On 16.9.2008, he presented a cheque bearing No. 527300 dated 16.9.2008 amounting to Rs. 1,50,000/- for the purpose of collection in the OP No.1 Bank which is evident from receipt Annexure C-1. The OP No.1 Bank assured the complainant that the payment of the aforesaid cheque will be deposited in his saving account after getting it collected from the concerned bank and in case the cheque is dishonoured then the cheque in question will be returned to the complainant. After reasonable time, complainant contacted the OP No.1 bank regarding the fate of aforesaid cheque but the Op No.1 bank put off the matter either on the one pretext or the other. After waiting for more than one month, complainant visited the OP No.1 Bank again but this time the staff of the Op Bank misbehaved with the complainant and did not give any satisfactorily answer. Finding no alternate, the complainant issued a legal notice (Annexure C-2) to the Op No.1 Bank which was duly served but the Op No.1 bank instead of making the payment of aforesaid cheque or to return the cheque to the complainant, sent a false and evasive reply (annexure C-3) to the complainant. In the reply of legal notice, Op No.1 Bank has also admitted that the said cheque was sent to Allahabad Bank, Sadhaura and the cheque was returned by the Bank unpaid on dated 7.10.2008 and further stated that the cheque in question has been delivered to some wrong address by mistake by OP No.2 i.e. Dolphin Courier Agency. After that complainant visited the office of Op No.2 in this regard but the Op No.2 also did not give any satisfactory reply. It has been further alleged that the person who had issued the aforesaid cheque has flatly refused to make the payment of the aforesaid cheque and in this way the complainant has suffered an economic loss of Rs. 1,50,000/- and lastly prayed that due to the circumstances noted above there is gross negligence and deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs and praying therein that OPs be directed to make the payment of Rs. 1,50,000/- alongwith interest i.e. amount of cheque and further to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation and Rs. 21,000/- as litigation expenses. Hence this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice, OPs No.1 & 3 appeared and filed its written statement separately whereas OP No.2 failed to appear despite service, hence he was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 14.8.2012. OP No.1 Bank filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable, complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and has suppressed the true and material facts. The true facts are that complainant has deposited a cheque in question with Op No.1 Bank and thereafter, the OP No.1 Bank sent the said cheque for clearing to Allahabad Bank Sadhaura but the same was returned by it, unpaid apparently at wrong address, as it is evident from the memo of delivery (Annexure R-1) issued by Op No.2 Courier Company. So, the OP No.1 bank has not received the cheque in question and the said fact were explained to the complainant. As such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1 Bank. If there is any negligence for the misplacing of said cheque, then the same is of Allahabad Bank, Sadhaura or the OP No.2 courier agency. The OP No.1 Bank has just worked as agent, as to collect money from the Allahabad Bank Sadhaura and to deposit the same to the account of the complainant maintained by the OP No.1 Bank. On merit, all the contents of the complaint were denied specifically and reiterated the stand taken in the preliminary objections and lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint qua the OP No.1 Bank.

4.                     OP No.3 filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable, no relationship of consumer and supplier of service between the complainant and Op No.3 Bank and on merit it has been stated that one Naseeb Singh was having saving bank account bearing No. 16731 in the OP No.3 Bank. A cheque bearing No. 527300 was received from the State Bank of Patiala for encashment purpose, however, that cheque was dishonoured by the OP No.3 bank for the reasons “Fund insufficient” An entry to that effect was also made in the cheque returning register on 3.10.2008, copy of which is Annexure R-3/1. After dishonouring the said cheque it was handed over to the concerned bank i.e. OP No.1 Bank. Thus, the OP No.3 Bank has done its act within four corners of law and there was no deficiency or negligence in service on the part of OP No.3 Bank. Lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint qua the OP No.3 Bank.

5.                     To prove the case, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CX and documents such as Photo copy of counter part of the receipt for depositing the cheque as Annexure C-1, Copy of legal notice as Annexure C-2, Reply of legal notice dated 18.05.2009 as Annexure C-3 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

6.                     On the other hand, Ms. Diksha Branch Manager of OP No.1 Bank tendered into evidence her affidavit as Annexure RX and documents such as photo copy of delivery sheet of Dolphin Courier Service as Annexure R-1, Photo copy of memo of Allahabad Bank for sending delivery sheet of courier dated 18.12.2008 as Annexure R-2 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.1 Bank.

 7.                    Sh. Harbans Singh, Assistant Manager of Op No.3 also tendered into evidence his affidavit as Annexure R3/X and documents such as Account statement of Naseeb Singh as Annexure R3/1, Photo copy of register of returning cheques as Annexure R3/2 and R3/3 and closed the evidence on behalf of Op No.3.

8.                     We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very carefully and minutely. It is not disputed that complainant was having a saving bank account bearing No. 65026876098 with State Bank of Patiala i.e. OP No.1 Bank and further he had deposited a cheque bearing No. 527300 dated 16.09.2008 amounting to Rs. 1,50,000/- drawn on Allahabad Bank Sadhaura for collection which is evident from copy of receipt Annexure C-1. It is also not disputed that the cheque in question was dishonoured by the concerned bank i.e. Op No.3 Bank for the reasons “ Insufficient Fund” and after that returned to the OP No.1 Bank through Dolphin Service Courier i.e. Op No.2 which is evident from photo copy of register for returning the cheques entry Annexure R3/2 and R3/3. Learned counsel for the OP No.1 Bank argued that the said unpaid cheque was returned on wrong address which is evident from memo of delivery of courier and draw our attention towards the delivery receipt Anenxure R-1.

9.                     We have gone through the delivery receipt dated 7.10.2008 (Annexure R-1) wherein it has been noted that at serial No. 26833-Allahabad Sadhaura- SBOP, MSA-YNR. Meaning thereby that by this delivery receipt two couriers at serial No. 11534 and 26833 were delivered at MSA State Bank of Patiala, Yamuna Nagar on 7.10.2008. Learned counsel for the Op No.1 bank further argued that there are two separate branches i.e. State Bank of Patiala, Mini Secretariat Branch Jagadhri and State Bank of Patiala MSA Branch Yamuna Nagar and according to this delivery receipt of courier as Annexure R-1, the Courier in question has been delivered at State Bank of Patiala MSA Branch, Yamuna Nagar not at Mini Secretariat. Hence, there was no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of Op No.1 Bank. Learned counsel for the OP No.1 further argued that in case there is any negligence or deficiency in service then the OPs No.2 & 3 are responsible for that whereas learned counsel for OP No.3 i.e. Allahabad Bank hotly argued that the said courier was sent at correct address which is evident from Annexure R-3/3, wherein it has been recorded that State Bank of Patiala, Mini Secretariat, Jagadhri at serial No.12 in respect of cheque No. 527300 amounting to Rs. 1,50,000/-, Hence, there was no negligence on the part of Op No.3.

10.                   After hearing both the parties, we are of the considered view that there is a negligence and deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1 Bank as it was the duty of the Op No.1 Bank to take care and taken up the matter internally to redress the grievances of the complainant immediately but no step has been taken by OP No.1 Bank as no cogent evidence has been filed by the OP No.1 Bank that what steps have been taken by them for locating the said cheque/courier of the complainant. Even not a single word has been mentioned in the written statement of OP No.1 Bank, ultimately what was the fate of the said courier i.e. whether it was located/traced out or not and the same was handed over to the complainant or not. Even the OP No.1 has also not filed any documentary evidence that the State Bank of Patiala have any other branch under the name of State Bank of Patiala MSA Branch, Yamuna Nagar. Moreover, if we presume that there are two separate branches then also it was the duty of that branch to return the cheque/ courier to the Mini Secretariat Branch immediately. As the complainant was having saving account with the OP No.1 Bank i.e State Bank of Patiala, Mini Secretariat, Jagadhri and bank has charged the collection charges then it cannot be said that there was no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1 Bank.

11.                   Although the OP No.2 M/s Dolphin Courier agency remained ex-parte but no case is made out against him, hence, the complaint qua Op No.2 is hereby dismissed.

12.                   As the courier in question has been sent by Op No.3 Bank to the State Bank of Patiala Jagadhri, so, we are of the view that there is also no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.3 and the complaint qua OP No.3 is also hereby ordered to be dismissed.

13.                   The complainant has not filed any cogent evidence that cheque issuing person i.e. Naseeb Singh has not made the payment of Rs. 1,50,000/- to him despite the effective steps taken by him i.e. recovery suit, legal notice to that person. So, we are unable to hold that complainant has suffered economic loss on account of loss of that cheque. However, complainant might have suffered some mental agony and harassment which was forced to him to file the present complaint, hence, he is entitled to get some relief.  

14.                   In the circumstances noted above, we are of the considered view that there is a deficiency in service and negligence on the part of OP No.1 Bank.

15.                   Resultantly, we partly allow the complaint of complainant and direct the OP No.1 Bank to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment as well as litigation expenses to the complainant. Order be complied within a period of 30 days after preparation of copy of this order, failing which, complainant shall be entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum as per law. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in the open court:

Dated: 21.04.2016.

                                                                                               ( ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                                  PRESIDENT

                                                                   

                                                                                                (  S.C. SHARMA)

                                                                                                 MEMBER