DATE OF FILING: 10.07.2014.
DATE OF DISPOSAL: 17.12.2016.
Dr. Alaka Mishra Member (W).
The complainant has filed this consumer complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in banking service against the Opposite Party (for short, O.P.) and for redressal of his grievance before this Forum.
2. Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that the complainant taken a Demand Draft vide D.D.No.495662 dated 23.3.2007 for Rs.1,30,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Thirty Thousand) only in favour of Y.Damayanti payable at Bilaspur. The Demand Draft in question was lost and immediately thereafter, the matter was informed to the O.P. by the complainant and the O.P. accordingly stopped the draft for payment officially. After stopping of the demand draft in question, the complainant could not avail the money of Rs.1,30,000/- and the money was very much with the O.P. The complainant in urgency requested the O.P. for issue of a duplicate demand draft for the same amount on 22.11.2013. As per the instructions of the O.P. Bank, the complainant deposited Rs.110/- only towards service charges. Thereafter, the complainant visited the O.P.Bank time and again for issue of the duplicate demand draft for Rs.1,30,000/- but in vain. The complainant being harassed under suffering and mental agony filed a petition on dated 22.11.2013 requesting for issue of duplicate demand draft immediately. The complainant again submitted one reminder stating therein for issue of the demand draft within one week failing the complainant shall go for legal action. Inspite of the same, the Opposite Party did not respond to issue duplicate copy of the demand draft till date. The O.P.Bank has utilized the money of the complainant amounting to Rs.1,30,000/- only in their own business and gaining interest thereon. For the deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. Bank, the complainant suffered from harassment, causing mental agony. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. the complainant prayed to direct the O.P. for immediately refund of Rs.1,30,000/- only alongwith interest @15% per annum from 24.3.2007 till date of payment, compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- in the best interest of justice.
3. Upon notice the Opposite Party filed written version/argument through his learned counsel Sri B.K.Mohanty, Advocate. It is stated the complainant had purchased a draft bearing No.495662 for Rs.1,30,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Thirty Thousand) only on 23.03.2007 in the name of his wife Y.Damayanti payable at Bilaspur Branch (MP). Subsequently, in the month of September 2013, he approached this O.P. and informed regarding loss of the original draft. On his request the Bank authorities changed the status of the draft as ‘LOST” and marked “stop payment” against the said instrument in their system. They requested the complainant to intimate them in writing regarding the above fact at the earliest. However, the complainant, RSV Harinathbabu remained silent for some time and only on 22.11.2013 approached this O.P.Bank with a request to issue a duplicate draft. As per the banking procedure, a conformation letter regarding non encashment of the draft is required from the drawee Branch i.e. Bilaspur Branch (MP) and without receipt of the same no duplicate can be issued. But surprisingly, after a few days the RSV Harinathbabu came to the branch and produced the original draft bearing No.4995662 dated 23.3.2007 and this complainant on examination of the draft found the following discrepancies “a) The draft was presented at Central Bank of India, Bilaspur on 28.3.2007, b) And again on 1.5.2007 on clearing through Central Bank of India, Bilaspur, c) Further, the draft was presented before Central Bank of India on 19.9.2013 for cancellation of all stamps”. So, it is clear that, the original draft has never been lost and very much within the knowledge and custody of the complainant and for reason best known to the complainant he was trying to mislead this opposites party and pressurizing them to deviate from their established banking norms and procedures. Inspite of all these, this O.P. tried to help the complainant either by cancelling the original draft or by issuing a duplicate draft. But, the system did not allow the same, as because; the status of the draft was marked as “LOST” and “Stop payment”. Moreover, the draft series No.1116 also changed at CDC level. However, after continuous contact and follow up with the CDC, Belapur, Bombay, this O.P. could able to issue duplicate on 18.7.2014 vide draft No.755746 for Rs.1,30,000/-. On the same date the complainant was contacted over mobile number 8455856754 and reported that, he is at Hyderabad. Finally the complainant received the draft on 29.08.2014. So, it is quite clear that the complainant deliberately tried to mislead the O.P. but failed. Being aggrieved, he has filed this complaint petition with false and fabricated allegations. There is no unfair trade practice or harassment caused to the complainant as alleged in the petition. On the other hand, this O.P. took utmost care and interest in settling the claim to the satisfaction of the complainant. So this O.P. is not liable to pay any compensation, cost, damage, interest etc. to the complainant. Hence this O.P. prayed to dismiss the complaint in the interest of justice.
4. On the date of hearing we heard argument at length from both sides. The learned counsels for the complainant as well as O.P. are present and enlighted the cases. We have also gone through the written argument filled by the parties and have also perused the materials on record.
5. During the course of hearing of the dispute, learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant has filed the dispute claiming duplicate demand draft from O.P. which was lost by the party in his own hand bearing draft No. 495662 dated 23.03.2007 for Rs.1,30,000/- in favour of one Y. Damayanti at Bilaspur. He also submitted that he has deposited Rs.110/- to the O.P. to towards service charge and to issue a duplicate copy of demand draft. It is also a fact that when demand draft was lost by the complainant immediately informed to the O.P. to stop payment. The complainant ran time and again to O.P. for issue of the Demand Draft from 2007 up to 22.11.2013. But the O.P. failed to serve the complainant and caused mental agony and harassment, hence prayed for exemplary compensation.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the O.P. in his oral argument denied all the arguments and allegations made by the complainant. The demand draft was issued bearing No. 495662 for Rs.1,30,000/- on dated 23.03.2007 in the name of Y. Damayanti payable at Bilaspur Branch (MP). On request of the complainant Bank Authority stopped payment against the same instrument. However complainant was remained silent for 5 years. On dated 22.1.2013 again he approached to the Bank to issue him a duplicate demand draft. It is also submitted that as per banking procedure a confirmation letter regarding non encashment of draft is required from the drawee branch i.e. Bilaspur Branch (MP) and without receipt of the same no duplicate can be issued. But, surprisingly, after a few days the RSV Harinathbabu came to the branch and produced the original draft bearing No. 495662 dated 23.03.2007 and this O.P. on examination of the draft found the following discrepancies “a) The draft was presented at Central Bank of India, Bilaspur on 28.03.2007 b) And again on 01.05.2007 on clearing through Central Bank of India, Bilaspur. Further, the draft was presented before Central Bank of India on 10.09.2013 for cancellation of all stamps”. So, it is clear that, the original draft was never been lost and very much within the knowledge and custody of the complainant and for reason best known to the complainant he was trying to mislead this O.P. and pressurizing them to deviate from their established banking norms and procedures. Inspite of all these, this O.P. tried to help the complainant either by cancelling the original draft or by issuing a duplicate draft. But the system did not allow the same, as because, the status of the draft was marked as “LOST “and “stop payment”. Moreover, the draft series No. 1116 was also changed at CDC level. However, after continuous contact and follow up with the CDC, Bombay, this O.P. could able to issue duplicate on dated 18.07.2014 vide draft No. 755746 for Rs.1,30,000/-. On the same date the complainant was contacted over mobile number 8455856754 , the complainant replied that he was at Hyderabad, after return from Hyderabad he could able to receive the duplicate demand draft . Finally the complainant received duplicate demand draft on dated 28.08.2014, so it is quite clear that the O.P. never makes any deficiency in service to the complainant. Similarly there is no harassment made by the O.P. at any time rather he protected the interest of the complainant to make stop payment earlier. So the O.P. has not made any deficiency in service in his part.
7. We have perused the pleadings of both parties and have thoughtfully considered the contentions advanced before us. On perusal of pleading and verification of documents placed on record we found force in the contention of the learned counsel for the O.P. On verification of all the correspondences it is clear that the O.P. did not make any deficiency on his part because the lost draft was presented Central Bank of India, Bilaspur on 28.03.2007 again on 1.05.2007 and finally on 10.09.2007which is beyond dispute. We also found that due to stop payment and ‘lost’ mark the bank system did not allow for issue a duplicate draft. But after continuous follow up with the CDC, Belapur, Bombay the O.P. issued a duplicate draft on 18.7.2014 vide Draft No. 755746 for Rs.1,30,000/- and the matter was informed to the complainant on the same day on 8455856754 mobile number. It also revealed that the complainant received the draft on 28.8.2014. This fact is evident from the documents submitted by the O.P. marked as Document 1 to 5 series. It is also crystal clear from the report of transaction enquiry that the amount has been credited to his savings Bank account as is evident from Document No. 4 & 5 placed on the case record. In view of the discussion, we found that the complainant with an ulterior motive has misled the Forum cover his own fault. Hence, the case of the complainant deserves no consideration.
In the result, we dismissed the case of the complainant against the O.P. due to devoid of any merit. However in the facts and circumstances of the dispute, we are not inclined to award any compensation and cost in this case. The case of the complainant is disposed of accordingly.
The order is pronounced on this day of 17th December 2016 under the signature and seal of this Forum. The office is directed to supply copy of order to the parties free of cost and be sent to the server
