DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANSA. Complaint No.177/23.10.2008 Decided on : 25.03.2009 Sh.Bhola Singh, S/o Sh.Sucha Singh, resident of village Kahangarh, Tehsil Budhlada, District Mansa. ..... Complainant. VERSUS 1. The Mansa Central Co-operative Bank Limited, Branch Bareta, Tehsil Budhlada, District Mansa, through its Manager. 2.The Mansa Central Co-operative Bank Limited, Mansa, through its D.M. ..... Opposite Parties. Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. ..... Present: Sh.Raj Kamal Sharma, Advocate counsel for the complainant. Sh.H.S.Sadhuwala, Advocate, counsel for the opposite parties. Quorum: Sh.P.S.Dhanoa, President. Sh.Sarat Chander, Member. Smt.Neena Rani Gupta, Member. ORDER:- Sh.P.S. Dhanoa, President. This complaint has been filed, by Sh.Bhola Singh, son of Sh.Sucha Singh, resident of village Kahangarh, Tehsil Budhlada, District Mansa, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the 'Act') against The Mansa Central Co-operative Bank Limited, through its Manager of Branch Bareta and its D.M. Mansa, for payment of amount of cheque deposited by him, drawn in the sum of Rs.15,000/-, and payment of compensation in the sum of Rs.51,000/- Contd........2 : 2 : and costs of filing of the complaint. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant may be described as under:- 2. That he is a labourer by profession and a respectable person. The District Welfare Officer, Mansa issued cheque No.222931 dated 7.1.2008, in the sum of Rs.15,000/-, in favour of the complainant, on the eve of marriage of his daughter, as per the instructions of the Government of Punjab. The said cheque was deposited, by the complainant, with OP No.1 and was valid upto 31.3.2008. The complainant is consumer under the opposite parties, whose officials secured his thumb impressions on some blank papers and issued him counter foil of Pay-In-Slip dated 20.3.2008, of the cheque deposited by him, on even date. They also told him, that cheque would be sent, for clearance and it would take atleast one week, for encashment. After expiry of said period, the complainant again approached the OP No.1 at Bareta and enquired about the fate of his cheque, but he was informed, that the amount, has not been realized so far from drawer of the cheque through the OP No.2. About 60 days ago, complainant again approached the opposite parties, for payment of the amount of the cheque, in question, but he was told by their officials, that Government of Punjab, has no money in the Treasury, as such, cheque is not encashed and sent him out of its premises by use of force. The complainant, has been subjected to mental and physical harassment, due to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint. 3. On being put to notice, Opposite parties filed written version, resisting the complaint, by taking preliminary objections; that complainant, has no cause of action, and locus standi, to file the complaint; that the complainant, has concealed material facts, from the knowledge of this Forum and that the complaint is barred by limitation, as such, it is not maintainable and liable, to be dismissed, with costs. On merits, it is submitted, that cheque in question was deposited, by the complainant, on Contd........3 : 3 : 29.3.2008 with OP No.1. It is specifically denied that the said cheque was deposited by him on 20.3.2008 or counter foil of Pay-In-Slip was issued in his favour by OP No.1 or that there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. It is submitted that cheque was deposited at about 2 P.M. on 29.3.2008 on Saturday, as such, the same could not be sent for clearing in clearance on 30.3.2008 on account of Sunday. It is further submitted that on 31.3.2008, cheque was sent in clearance to OP No.2, but due to delay in dispatch of the cheque for collection of the amount through clearance, the payment of the cheque could not be realized from the Government, as the same was valid upto 31.3.2008. It is denied that there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties or that complainant was maltreated by their officials. Rather, it is submitted that in fact the complainant, has not suffered any loss due to any lapse on the part of the opposite parties or their officials, but he has presented a false complaint by concocting false version, to harass the opposite parties and damage their reputation. Rest of the averments made in the complaint, have been denied, and a prayer has been made, for dismissal of the same, with costs. 4. On being called upon by this Forum, to do so, the complainant tendered his affidavit, Exhibit C-1 and copies of documents Ext.C-2 to C-12 before his counsel closed the evidence. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties, tendered in evidence copies of documents Ext.OP-1 to OP-6 including cheque in question, Pay-In-Slip, and returning memo and affidavit of Sh.Nahar Singh, Branch Manager Ext.OP-7 before he closed their evidence. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the oral and documentary evidence, adduced on record, by them, carefully, with their kind assistance. 6. Learned counsel for the complainant Sh.Raj Kamal Sharma, Advocate, has submitted, that complainant is a rural rustic person, who Contd........4 : 4 : cannot read and write, as such, inference cannot be drawn that counter foil of Pay-In-Slip, enclosing therewith the cheque in question, has been issued by any official or officer posted in the office of the OP No.1 on 20.3.2008. Learned counsel, has drawn our attention, to copy of the Pay-In-Slip tendered into evidence by the complainant showing overwriting on the date of deposit of cheque mentioned in the said document. Learned counsel further argued that no sane official can dare to issue the counter folio of the Pay-In-Slip in back date and invite liability for his bank. Learned counsel further argued, that plea of the opposite parties about the delay in dispatch of the cheque for collection of the amount through clearance, is not supported by any evidence, as such, relief sought by the complainant cannot be denied to him, merely because he could not repose confidence in the official of the opposite parties, who has committed fraud with him by not affixing his signatures and seal of the office of the OP No.1. Learned counsel submitted, that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and the complainant is entitled to claim compensation from them and costs of filing of the complaint. 7. On the other hand, Sh. H.S.Sadhuwala, Advocate,Learned counsel for the opposite parties, has argued that there is considerable delay on the part of the complainant, for depositing the cheque for collection of the amount from the drawer, as such, he cannot blame the opposite parties for dishonouring of the cheque, especially when the same has not been encashed, because of delay in presentation on Saturday, intervening holiday next day on account of Sunday and receipt of cheque by the office of OP No.2 from the office of OP No.1 after dispatch of cheques sent for collection through clearance from his office. Learned counsel argued that cheque was valid upto 31.3.2008, as such, encashment thereof was not possible as per Banking Law, on the subject. Learned counsel further submitted, that as per copies of documents, tendered into evidence by the opposite parties, they have even moved to the District Welfare Officer, for Contd........5 : 5 : revalidation of the date of cheque, deposited by the complainant, because of his poverty and he has not alleged any malafide on the part of their officials in the complaint , as such, there is no deficiency in service for which they may be directed to pay compensation to the complainant and costs of filing of the instant complaint, which is mis use of process of court. 8. We find merit in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the opposite parties, because the counter foil Ext.C-2 dated 20.3.2008, neither bears the seal of the opposite parties, nor signatures of their officials. Even it does not bear the cheque number, date of issue and name of the Branch Office of the opposite parties, where it has been deposited. Therefore, reliance cannot be placed on the said document. On the other hand, the opposite parties, have produced on record the receipt Ext.OP-2, which admittedly bears the thumb impressions of the complainant, which bears the seal of the opposite parties and serial number at which cheque after its receipt has been received. There is overwriting on date of deposit of cheque, mentioned in the Pay-In-Slip, but handwriting of Pay-In-Slip Ext.OP-2 does not tally with its counter foil Ext.C-2, tendered in evidence by the complainant. As evident from the perusal of these documents, even the pen used for writing their contents is not identical. The cheque Ext.C-3 bears the same serial number and date of deposit, as mentioned in copy of the Pay-In-Slip Ext.OP-2. The reverse side of the cheque, deposited by the complainant, bears his thumb impression and name with the endorsement made by the OP No.1 on 31.3.2008. Even the document Ext.OP-3 bears the same date of deposit of cheque, which has not been encashed by OP No.2, being the Government cheque and receipt on last date of its validity from the office of OP No.1, after dispatch of instruments through clearance, for collection to the bank dealing with Government Treasury. All these documents cannot be said to have been forged by the officials of the opposite parties. They had no Contd........6 : 6 : reason or rhyme to do so. The contents of the affidavit Ext.C-1 regarding dispatch of cheque on 29.3.2008 in the forenoon by the complainant on Saturday and 30.3.2008, being holiday on account of Sunday, have gone uncontroverted, as the complainant has not produced any evidence, to the contrary. As such, delay which has taken place in dispatch of cheque deposited by the complainant is not malafide or intentional and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. 9. The opposite parties have also tendered in evidence copy of letter dated 19.4.2008 and 27.8.2008 Ext.OP-5 and OP-6, addressed to the District Welfare Officer, Mansa, with the request, to extend the date of validity of the cheque written by their Manager of their bank Branch Bareta. Had there been any malafide on the part of the opposite parties, they need not to take any sympathetic action, and they must have returned the cheque to the complainant, without difficulty and absolve them of their liability instead of taking up the matter with the drawer of the cheque. 10. In the light of the above discussion, we have come to the conclusion, that there is no evidence on account of which the opposite parties may be directed to make payment of compensation to the complainant. Resultantly, we dismiss the complaint and leave the parties to bear their own costs. 11. The copies of the order be supplied, to the parties, free of costs, as permissible, under the rules. File be indexed and consigned to record. Pronounced: 25.03.2009 Neena Rani Gupta, Sarat Chander, P.S.Dhanoa, Member. Member. President.
