DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Complaint Case No : 87 of 2017
Date of Institution : 15.06.2017
Date of Decision : 25.05.2018
Ramesh Kumar @ Ghopa son of Sh. Jot Ram resident of Model Town, Tapa, Tehsil Tapa, District Barnala.
…Complainant
Versus
The Branch Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Branch Near Balmik Chowk, Sadar Bazar, Tapa Mandi, District Barnala.
The Branch Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Branch Kacha College Road, Barnala.
The Regional Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce, 1st Floor Overlock Road, Miller Ganj, Ludhiana-141003.
The Chairman, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Head Office-Corporate Office, Plot No. 5, Institutional Area, Sector-32, Gurgaon-122001.
…Opposite Parties
Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Present: Sh. N.K. Garg counsel for complainant.
Sh. J.K. Kapil counsel for opposite parties.
Quorum.-
1. Shri Sukhpal Singh Gill : President
2. Ms. Vandna Sidhu : Member
ORDER
(SUKHPAL SINGH GILL PRESIDENT):
The complainant Ramesh Kumar @ Ghopa has filed the present complaint against the Branch Manager Oriental Bank of Commerce Tapa Mani and others (hereinafter called as the opposite parties) under Consumer Protection Act 1986.
2. It is alleged that the complainant is the permanent resident of Tapa and is very old customer of the Bank. On 2.12.2016 the complainant presented a cheque No. 551509 dated 5.9.2016 amounting to Rs. 4,00,000/- drawn on Indusind Bank, Branch Mansa through clearing house of the opposite parties. The complainant visited many times at Tapa Branch for the fate of the said cheque, but the Branch Manager put of the matter on one pretext or the other. On 27.12.2016 the complainant alongwith his friend visited the opposite party No. 1 and requested about the status of the said cheque and on this the opposite party No. 1 told that the said cheque has already been sent to opposite party No. 2 for clearing. Again on 4.1.2017 the complainant requested the opposite party No. 1 to clear the status of the said cheque as the complainant was having faith that the said cheque would not be honoured, as previously one cheque bearing No. 551508 dated 5.3.2016 of Rs. 3,00,000/- was already dishonoured and a complaint in respect of the same is pending before the Hon'ble Court of Sh. Ranjeev Pal Singh Cheema, JMIC, Barnala for 31.7.2017. On this, the opposite party No. 1 wrote a mail to opposite party No. 2 vide Bc No. 0641030035216 dated 3.12.2016 for asking the status of the said cheque No. 551509 dated 5.9.2016. It is further alleged that the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 in connivance with each other and to cause wrongful loss to the complainant has fabricated and manipulated the memos dated 6.12.2016 and 13.12.2016. It is further submitted that the opposite parties harassed the complainant and caused economic loss to the complainant and due to the illegal and fraudulent act of the opposite parties, the complainant suffered mental shock, pain and agony, as such the complainant is entitled to recover compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- from the opposite parties. Hence, the present complainant is filed for seeking the following reliefs.-
To pay Rs. 4,00,000/- being cheque amount alongwith upto date interest @ 18% per annum.
To pay Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs. 30,000/- as litigation expenses.
3. Upon notice of this complaint the opposite parties filed written version taking legal objections on the grounds of no cause of action, maintainability, jurisdiction and complicated questions of facts and law involved which cannot be decided in summary procedure etc. On merits, it is submitted that the cheque deposited by the complainant was immediately sent to Barnala Branch. The cheque was deposited on 3.12.2016 which was valid upto 4.12.2016 and 3.12.2016 and 4.12.2016 was Saturday and Sunday. Therefore, the cheque became invalid. It is further submitted that serious allegations against the employees of the Bank cannot be proved in summary procedure. Moreover, the allegations are outside the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and jurisdiction of this Forum is barred by law. All other allegations of the complaint are denied and prayed for the dismissal of complaint with costs of Rs. 10,000/-.
4. In order to prove his case, the complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of cheque No. 551509 dated 5.9.2016 for Rs. 4,00,000/- of Indusind Bank Ex.C-2, copy of memo of OBC Tapa Ex.C-3, copy of memo dated 6.1.2016 Ex.C-4, copy of memo of OBC Tapa dated 13.12.2016 Ex.C-5, copy of email by OBC Tapa Ex.C-6, copy of legal notice dated 14.4.2017 Ex.C-7, copies of postal receipts Ex.C-8 to Ex.C-11, copy of reply of legal notice Ex. C-12, copy of reply by OBC Barnala Ex.C-13, certified copy of summoning order dated 28.9.2016 Ex.C-14 and closed the evidence.
5. To rebut the evidence of the complainant the opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Gian Murti Bansal Branch Manager Ex.O.P1.2.3.4/1, copy of statement of account Ex.O.P1.2.3.4/2 and closed the evidence.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records.
7. The complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties and had deposited a cheque No. 551509 dated 5.9.2016 for Rs. 4,00,000/- drawn on Indusind Bank Mansa for collection on 2.12.2016. On 4.1.2017 the complainant visited the opposite party No. 1 to know the status of the cheque as previously also cheque No. 551508 for Rs. 3,00,000/- was dishonoured of the same party. The opposite parties have not collected the cheque in question and had fabricated and manipulated the memo dated 6.12.2016 and 13.12.2016. So, the opposite parties are negligent and deficient in service and have cheated the complainant and have forged and fabricated false documents dated 6.12.2016 and 13.12.2016.
8. In reply the opposite parties have admitted having received the cheque deposited by the complainant on 2.12.2016 which was valid upto 4.12.2016. As the said cheque was issued on 5.9.2016 and could be collected within three months. Being an outstation cheque the same was sent to the Barnala Branch and was received back unpaid vide memo dated 6.12.2016 with the remarks “cheque is out of date” and as such the opposite parties have denied any deficiency on their part.
9. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and on perusing of the documents placed on record, we find that though the cheque Ex.C-2 is dated 5.9.2016, but the same was presented to the Bank only a few days before its validity i.e. on 2.12.2016. Moreover, the said cheque is of Indusind Bank and there is no branch of this bank at Tapa. So, the same was sent to Branch Office Barnala for collection. By the time it reached Branch Office Barnala, the cheque became out of date as has been mentioned in document Ex.C-4.
10. We have also gone through the document Ex.C-12, which is reply of the opposite parties to the legal notice of the complainant in which it has been mentioned that the cheque was presented too late and the same was received back unpaid as the RBI guidelines states that the cheque is valid for three months from the date of issue.
11. From the above facts it is quite evident that the opposite parties have acted very fast and all efforts were made to collect the amount of the cheque but since it was presented very late by the complainant, so the cheque in question became invalid. All this shows that there was no postal and processing delay in collecting the cheque.
12. The complainant has also mentioned in the complaint that cheque No. 551508 dated 5.3.2016 for Rs. 3,00,000/- of the same party was dishonoured. It means that the complainant was also aware that there are no funds in the account of the drawer of the cheque and for this reason the complainant presented the cheque for collection very late. This view also finds strength from the document Ex.O.P1.2.3.4/2, which is the statement of account of the drawer of the cheque.
13. Further, on the perusal of document Ex.C-2, we find that there is no stamp of the collecting Bank i.e. opposite party No. 1 on the face of the cheque and neither there is any endorsement of the Bank on the back of the cheque Ex.C-2. It means that this document is not the photocopy of the cheque, which has been received back unpaid. The document Ex.C-2 seems to be the photocopy of the cheque before presenting the same in the collecting Bank i.e. opposite party No. 1. This gives rise to the apprehension that the complainant had already made his mind to implicate the opposite parties as he was aware that the cheque will not be honoured from the fact that already one cheque No. 551508 of 5.3.2016 for Rs. 3,00,000/- was dishonoured of the same party. So, from the facts mentioned above, we find that the opposite parties are not deficient in service as the cheque presented on 2.12.2016 was returned on 6.12.2016 without any kind of processing and postal delay, rather the complainant had intentionally deposited the cheque dated 5.9.2016 just a few days before its validity. The present complaint is clearly the misuse and abuse of the proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the same cannot be taken lightly and we have no hesitation to dismiss the present complaint and to award costs of Rs. 5,000/- on the complainant to be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Account, maintained by this Forum. The cost is to be paid within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. The file be consigned to the records.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM:
25th day of May 2018
(Sukhpal Singh Gill)
President.
(Vandna Sidhu)
Member
