| ORDER | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA
C.C.No. 334 of 17-07-2012 Decided on 20-05-2013
Ramesh Kumar S/o Sh. Bhagat Ram Arora, aged about 43 years, R/o H. No. 19471, Street No. 1, Bibiwala Road, Bathinda.
........Complainant Versus
Branch Manager, Syndicate Bank, # 2701 Bhaika Chamber, Old Bus Stand, G.T. Road,Bathinda. M/s. Airman Courier, 3862 Near Sareen Hotel, Railway Road, Bathinda through its prop./partner The Bathinda Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Branch, Talwandi Sabo, through its Branch Manager Principal St. Xavier's School C/o Society of Pilar, Parish Priest, Our Lady of assumption Xaverian Academy, Near BDO Office, Rama Road, Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda 151 302.
.......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member Smt.Sukhwinder Kaur, Member For the Complainant : Sh. Sumeet Verma, counsel for the complainant. For the opposite parties : Sh. Vinod Garg, counsel for opposite party No. 1. Sh. Harsukhdeep Singh, counsel for opposite party No. 2. Sh. Manjit Singh, counsel for opposite party No. 3. Sh. Deepak Gupta, counsel for opposite party No. 4. O R D E R
VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT
The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that he is maintaining bank account bearing No. 81051250000590 with the opposite party No. 1. The complainant deposited with opposite party No. 1 a cheque bearing No. 138246 dated 3-5-2012 drawn on opposite party No. 3 issued by opposite party No. 4 for Rs. 30,000/- favouring M/s. Chwodhary Trading Co., for encashment but till the date of filing of this complaint, the amount of cheque was not deposited in the account of the complainant by the opposite parties. The complainant alleged that on checking of his account statement, he found that on 4-5-2012, the cheque of Rs. 30,000/- was credited in his account and on the same day, the said amount was debited and on 5-5-2012, an amount of Rs. 113/- was also debited in his account being bouncing charges. The complainant alleged that neither the original cheque was returned to him nor the opposite parties issued any memo mentioning the reason for bouncing the cheque in question. The complainant further alleged that he repeatedly requested the opposite parties to credit the amount of said cheque in his account, but all in vain. Hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint seeking directions to the opposite parties to credit the amount of cheque in question alongwith interest in his account and pay him compensation and cost. The opposite parties filed their separate written statements. The opposite party No. 1 has admitted that the complainant presented the cheque in question for Rs. 30,000/- drawn on opposite party No. 3 for encashment and opposite party No. 1 sent the said cheque to the drawer bank i.e. opposite party No. 3 for collection purposes through opposite party No. 2. The credit of cheque in question was to be received within a reasonable time of about ten days. The opposite party No. 1 contacted opposite party Nos. 2 & 3 in this regard and opposite party No. 3 vide letter No. 173 dated 27-08-2012 informed that they did not receive the cheque in question whereas the opposite party No. 2 through whom the cheque was sent, gave proof of delivery of cheque to the opposite party No. 3, which bears stamp and signatures of the receiving official. The complainant was also explained the position and he was satisfied with the efforts of the opposite party No. 1. The opposite party No. 1 has further pleaded that since the cheque in question was of dated 3-5-2012 and its validity has already expired, the complainant was advised to get duplicate cheque from the issuing party in lieu of the misplaced cheque. The opposite party No. 2 in its separate written statement has admitted that it had received a parcel from the opposite party No. 1 for delivery of the same to opposite party No. 3 vide Sr. No. 2063 and C. No. 20631004. The said parcel was handed over to Mr. Joshi for delivery of the same to opposite party No. 3 and the same was delivered in the office of opposite party No. 3 against proper receipt which has been signed by Mr. Robin, official of opposite party No. 3. The opposite party No. 2 has pleaded that after few days, the official of opposite party No. 1 inquired about the parcel for opposite party No. 2 and it informed the opposite party No. 1 that the said parcel has been delivered. Thereafter the officials of opposite party No. 1 again approached the opposite party No. 2 and disclosed that the said parcel is not traceable and requested it to again confirm the fact about the delivery of the parcel. Mr. Joshi, who delivered the parcel, visited the office of opposite party No. 3 and confirmed about the delivery of parcel in question. The opposite party No. 2 is having absolutely no concern with the said parcel after delivery of the same to the opposite party No. 3 against the proper signature/receipt. The opposite party No. 3 has admitted that the cheque in question is drawn on opposite party No. 3 and the same has not been encashed so far. The opposite party No. 3 has pleaded that it did not receive any such cheque from the banker of the complainant rather the same might have been lost during transit and the intimation of the same was also given by opposite party No. 3 to opposite party No. 1 on 27-08-2012 that the cheque in question has not been received by the opposite party No. 3. During the course of inquiry, the opposite party No. 3 came to know that the opposite party No. 1 allegedly sent the cheque in question to opposite party No. 3 through the opposite party No. 2, but however the same was never received by opposite party No. 3. The opposite party No. 3 has further pleaded that the cheque in question might have lost either from opposite party No. 1 or from opposite party No. 2 as a result of which the opposite party No. 3 could not make its payment. The opposite party No. 4 in its separate written statement has pleaded that it had purchased tyres for his car from the shop of the complainant and in lieu of the same, he issued a cheque for Rs. 30,000/- in favour of complainant's firm drawn on opposite party No. 3 and after that it had never visited to the complainant. The cheque in question has been lost by the bank then the onus only lies with the bank as per RBI guidelines not with opposite party No. 4, so it is being harassed unnecessary. Parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings. Arguments heard. Record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused. In the case in hand, the allegation of the complainant is that he has deposited a cheque bearing No. 138246 dated 3-5-2012 drawn on opposite party No. 3 issued by opposite party No. 4 for Rs. 30,000/- favouring M/s. Chwodhary Trading Co., for encashment with opposite party No. 1 but till date, the amount of cheque was not credited in the account of the complainant by the opposite parties, whereas the opposite party No. 1 debited an amount of Rs. 113/- in his account being cheque bouncing charges. The banker of complainant i.e. opposite party No. 1 has admitted in para No. 3 of its written statement that the complainant presented the cheque in question for Rs. 30,000/- drawn on opposite party No. 3 for encashment and it sent the same through courier i.e. opposite party No. 2 for collection purpose. The said bank has stated that they inquired the matter from courier and drawer bank and it was informed by the drawer bank that they did not receive the cheque whereas the courier company gave proof of delivery of cheque in question. The courier i.e. opposite party No. 2 through which the cheque in question has been sent has pleaded that the cheque in question has been delivered in the office of opposite party No. 3 against proper receipt. Mr. Joshi the official of opposite party No. 2 delivered the parcel containing the cheque to Mr. Robin an official of opposite party No. 3, who has signed the form after receipt of parcel, but the opposite party No. 3 has denied the receipt of cheque and pleaded that it might have been lost during transit. However, the opposite party No. 3 the drawer bank has admitted in para No. 3 of its written statement that the cheque in question is drawn on The Bathinda Central Co-op Bank Ltd., Talwandi Sabo and the same has not been encashed so far. A perusal of file reveals that the opposite party No. 2 has placed on file Ex. R-1 vide which the parcel has been delivered to opposite party No. 3 wherein one Mr. Robin has put his signatures. As per page 3 of Ex. R-6 i.e. Register of employees of opposite party No. 3, Mr. Robin is a computer clerk in the office of opposite party No. 3. There is no pleading of the opposite party No. 3 that Mr. Robin has not signed the Ex. R-1. Hence, it is proved on file that the cheque in question has been delivered to the opposite party No. 3 and it was lost at their end, which amounts to deficiency in service on its part. Since the opposite party No. 3 has admitted that the cheque in question has not been encashed till date, in such circumstances, it would meet the ends of justice if the complainant is allowed some amount of compensation including interest on the amount of Rs. 30,000/-, with direction to opposite party No. 4 to issue fresh cheque in lieu of misplaced cheque. The validity of misplaced cheque in question dated 3-5-2012 has already expired. The opposite party No. 1 in para 4 of its written statement has stated that the entry of Rs. 113/- i.e. Cheque bouncing charges, is being reversed. With utmost regard and humility to the authorities cited by the learned counsel for the opposite parties, they are distinguishable on facts. In view of what has been discussed above, this complaint is accepted against opposite party Nos. 1 & 4 without any cost and compensation and against opposite party no. 3 with Rs. 2500/- as compenstion and cost. The complaint is dismissed qua opposite party No. 2. The opposite party No. 4 is directed to issue fresh cheque in lieu of misplaced cheque in question to the complainant within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The opposite party No. 1 is directed to credit the amount of cheque in the account of the complainant immediately as received from opposite party No. 3. The opposite party No. 3 is directed to pay Rs. 2500/- being compensation and cost to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It is again made clear that cost and compensation of Rs. 2500/- will be paid only by opposite party No. 3 and, being a drawer bank, on receipt of cheque in question, it will immediately send the amount of cheque to opposite party No. 1. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and the file be consigned to the record.
Pronounced 20-05-2012 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni) President
(Amarjeet Paul) Member
(Sukhwinder Kaur) Member
| |
