DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.437 of 2010

DATE OF INSTITUTION: - 12.07.2010

DATE OF ORDER: -29 .10.2015

Randhir Singh son of Shri Shibhu Ram, resident of village Khanak, Tehsil Tohsam, District Bhiwani.

          .……Complainant.

VERSUS

State Bank of Patiala Branch Tosham through its Branch Manager.

…….. Opposite Party.

COMPLAINT U/S 12 & 13 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT

BEFORE :-  Shri Rajesh Jindal, President

Shri Balraj Singh, Member

Smt. Ansuya Bishnoi, Member

Present:- Shri Sanjiv Tanwar, Advocate for complainant.

     Shri M.L. Sardana, Advocate for respondent.

ORDER:-

Rajesh Jindal, President:

                    The case of the complainant in brief, is that he is having an account bearing No. 65042902621 in State Bank of Patiala, Tosham and on 23.09.2008 he used to deposit the cheque no. 014003 amounting to Rs. 11,420/- of State Bank of Baroda, Bhiwani.  It is alleged that the OP was not credited the cheque in his  account.  It is alleged that the complainant went to the office of OP many times but to no avail.  It is alleged that a legal notice was also issued to the OP but no reply was given.  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 OP and as such he had to file the present complaint.

2.                 Opposite party on appearance filed written statement alleging therein that as per record no such cheque as alleged in the complaint was deposited by the complainant for collection.  It is submitted that as per record some other cheques were presented by the complainant on 23.09.2008 which were duly sent for clearance.  Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of respondent and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.

3.                In order to make out his case, the complainant has placed on record Annexure C1 to Annexure C3 alongwith supporting affidavit.

4.                In reply thereto, the opposite parties have placed on record Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-3.

5.                 We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

6.                 Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint. He submitted that the cheque no. 014003 for Rs. 11,420/- drawn on Bank of Baroda, Bhilwara was deposited by the complainant with the opposite party, but the amount of said cheque has not been credited in the account of the complainant.  The cheque deposit receipt issued by opposite party is Annexure C-1.         

7.                 Learned counsel for the opposite party reiterated the contents of reply.  He submitted that the cheque in question was not deposited by the complainant with opposite party and the complainant has procured the said receipt Annexure C-1 fraudulently from the officials of the bank.  In support of his contention he referred the photo copy of cheque deposit register Annexure R-2.  He submitted that as per Annexure R-2, the complainant has deposited a number of cheques and all have been credited in the account of the complainant.  The statement account of the complainant is Annexure R-3.  He submitted that if the complainant had deposited the cheque in question with the opposite party then the same must have been mentioned in the cheque deposit register the photo copy of which is Annexure R-2. 

8.                 In the light of the pleadings and arguments of the parties, we have examined the relevant material on record. The cheque deposit register for Rs. 11,420/- dated 23.09.2008 Annexure C-1 is on the file to prove the contention of the complainant that he had deposited the cheque for Rs. 11,420/- with the opposite party.  The argument of the counsel for the opposite party that the complainant procured the said receipt fraudulently from the officials of the bank, is not tenable in the absence of the affidavit of the concerned official in support of the contention of the opposite party.  Hence the contention of the complainant for deposit the cheque in question with the opposite party cannot ruled out.  It seems that the cheque in question has been lost by the officials of the bank/OP.  Therefore, we hold the opposite party is guilty of deficiency in service.  It has not come on the file on behalf of the complainant whether he has received the amount of the cheque from the drawer of the said cheque in question.  So, in view of the facts of the case we partly allow the complaint of the complainant and award a lump sum compensation of Rs. 2500/- to the complainant against the opposite party.  The opposite party is directed to comply with the order 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:29.10.2015.                                                 (Rajesh Jindal)

                                                                                President,     

                                                                      District Consumer Disputes

                                                                      Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.

(Ansuya Bishnoi),            (Balraj Singh),

       Member.                                 Member.