DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.371 of 2013
DATE OF INSTITUTION: - 09.07.2013
DATE OF ORDER: - 14.12.2015
Rajesh (aged 38 years) son of Shri Phul Singh, resident of House No. 231, D.C. Colony, Bhiwani, Tehsil and District Bhiwani.
.……Complainant.
VERSUS
- Syndicate Bank, Hansi Road, Bhiwani, Tehsil and District Bhiwani, through its Manager.
- Xen, P.W.D. (Public Health) Division Kosli, District Rewari.
…….. Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 & 13 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT
BEFORE :- Shri Rajesh Jindal, President
Smt. Ansuya Bishnoi, Member
Present:- Shri D.V. Lamba, Advocate for complainant.
Shri M.L. Sardana, Advocate for OP no. 1.
None for OP no. 2.
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
The case of the complainant in brief, is that he is working with OP no. 2 at Kosli and the OP no. 2 issued a cheque of Rs. 1,08,197/- to him for completion of work order on 31.05.2013, vide cheque no. 209432. It is alleged that the cheque was deposited by the complainant in his banker saving A/c No. 82752010019706 on 31.05.2013 for clearance. The complainant alleged that after sufficient wait the cheque in question was not sent by the OP no. 1 for clearance and he visited to the office of OP no. 1 many times but OP no. 1 lingering the matter on one pretext or the other. It is alleged that in the month of June 2013, OP no. 1 sent a reminder to the Clearance Authorities. The complainant shocked a news from OP no. 1 that cheque in question was lost and the officials of the OP no. 1 have been searching the same. The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the opposite party, he had to suffer mental agony, physical harassment and financial losses. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs and as such he had to file the present complaint.
2. Opposite party no. 1 on appearance filed written statement alleging therein that the Blazflash Couriers Ltd. Bhiwani, by whom the cheque in question has been lost has not been impleaded as a party whereas the answering respondent has unnecessarily been dragged into this litigation. It is submitted that on 31.05.2013 the answering respondent sent the cheque in question to the drawee bank through Blazflash Couriers Ltd. for clearance but the when the cheque in question was not received after clearance, the answering respondent sent reminder dated 19.06.2013 to the drawee bank but no reply was given. It is submitted that it was confirmed by the said Couriers Ltd. vide letter dated 08.07.2013 that the cheque in question has been lost by their Rewari Branch. It is submitted that the answering respondent requested the SDO, Public Health for the issuance of a duplicate cheque vide letter dated 10.07.2013. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP no. 1 and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
3. On appearance, OP no. 2 also filed separately written statement alleging therein that if the complainant lodged the FIR/DDR regarding the lost of cheque it will issue duplicate cheque but the complainant did not lodge any FIR/DDR.
4. In order to make out his case, the complainant has placed on record Annexure C1 to Annexure C4 alongwith supporting affidavit. Written arguments on behalf of complainant filed.
5. In reply thereto, the opposite party no. 1 has placed on record Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-4 alongwith supporting affidavit. Opposite party no. 2 has placed on record supporting affidavit.
6. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
7. Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint. He submitted that the OP no. 1 is liable to pay the amount of cheque alongwith interest and compensation to the complainant.
8. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 1 reiterated the contents of reply. He submitted that the cheque deposited by the complainant was sent for collection by the Courier Agency to the drawee Bank Kosli (Rewari). The said courier agency lost the cheque in transit and informed the bank vide its letter dated 08.07.2013, the photo copy which is Annexure R-3. The bank immediately sent a letter to the drawee bank to stop the payment of the cheque. The cheque in question has been misused. The complainant can get issued the duplicate cheque from OP no. 2, who is also ready to issue the duplicate cheque.
9. Admittedly, a cheque no. 209432 dated 30.05.2013 for Rs. 1,08,197/- issued by the OP no. 2 was deposited by the complainant with OP no. 1 on 31.05.2013 vide receipt Annexure C-1. The photo copy of the cheque is Annexure C-3. The said cheque was lost in transit by the courier agency. The OP no. 2 in its reply has stated that if the complainant lodged the FIR/DDR regarding the lost of cheque it will issue duplicate cheque but the complainant did not lodge any FIR/DDR.
10. We observed that the complainant has not taken any step to get issued the duplicate cheque from OP no. 2, who is ready to issue the duplicate cheque after lodging of the FIR/DDR. The complainant is claiming the payment of the amount of cheque from OP no. 1. It is not the case of the complainant that the said cheque has been encashed and misused. The OP no. 1 is liable to pay the amount of the cheque only after receiving the funds from the drawee bank, since the cheque was lost in transit by the courier agency and the OP no. 1 has not received the funds, the OP no. 1 could not held liable to pay the amount of cheque with interest etc.
11. The OP no. 1 could not escape its liability for the lost of the cheque in transit and it is liable to pay reasonable compensation to the complainant on account of lost of cheque in transit which was handed over it by the courier agency, as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case of Citibank N.A. Vs. Geekay Agropack (P) Ltd. and Another, I (2009) CPJ 9 (SC) + 2008 CTJ 561 (SC) (CP), followed by Hon’ble National Commission in case of State Bank of India Vs. Muntha Lakshmi Kumari, I (2009) CPJ 198 (NC). Considering the facts of the case law we hold that the OP no. 1 is liable to pay Rs. 8,000/- as compensation to the complainant. Accordingly, we direct the OP no. 1 to pay Rs. 8,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2,000/- as litigation cost to the complainant. The OP no. 2 is directed to issue the duplicate cheque to the complainant, if not issued earlier. This order be complied with by the Ops within 30 days from the date of passing of this order. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated:14.12.2015. (Rajesh Jindal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Ansuya Bishnoi)
Member.
