Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/15/222

Jaspal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

UCO Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Arun Verma adv.

02 May 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. 222 of 01.04.2015

Date of Decision          :   02.05.2016

              

Jaspal Singh, aged 48 years, son of Shri Noharia Ram, resident of House No.13, Street No.1, Model Colony, Jagirpur Road, Jodhewal, Ludhiana.

….. Complainant

Versus

Uco Bank, Basti Jodhewal Branch, Ludhiana through its Manager Shri M.K.Sharma.

 

…Opposite party

 

    (COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986)

 

 

QUORUM:

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

MRS.BABITA, MEMBER

 

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant                      :         Sh.Arun Verma, Advocate.

For Op                           :         Sh.Yogesh Dhawan, Advocate

 

PER G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.                          Complainant Sh.Jaspal Singh, filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986(hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) against OP, by claiming that he,being holder of saving account No.04243210007711 with OP deposited one demand draft bearing No.838416 dated 8.10.2014 of  Rs.1,20,000/-; cheque No.508191 dated 13.10.2014 of Rs.90,000/- and cheque No.698603 of Rs.1,70,000/- on 14.10.2014 with OP against receipt, out of which, draft bearing No.838416 dated 8.10.2014 of Rs.1,20,000/- and cheque No.508191 dated 13.10.2014 of Rs.90,000/- were encashed. However, encashment of cheque No.698603 of worth of Rs.1,70,000/- had not taken place because the same has been mis-placed by OP. On enquiry by the complainant, he got the knowledge as if cheque No.698603 for amount of Rs.1,70,000/- has been encashed by another person from Bank of Baroda Branch Baba Than Singh Chowk, Ludhiana. On further enquiry from that Bank of Baroda by the complainant, he got knowledge as if one Rajnish Kumar Chouhan alias Sonu by impersonating himself as Jaspal Singh has got the cheque No.698603 encashed. Thereafter, on complaint filed by the complainant with P.S.Jodhewal, Ludhiana, FIR No.317 dated 28.11.2014 was registered against Rajnish Kumar Chouhan alias Sonu. On 14.3.2015, complainant demanded amount of Rs.1,70,000/- of missing cheque from the officials of OP, but they refused to make the payment by claiming that complainant can do whatever he likes. Thereafter, legal notice dated 19.3.2015 was got served by the complainant through his counsel Sh.Arun Verma, Advocate, District Courts, Ludhiana for calling upon OP to pay the said amount of Rs.1,70,000/- with interest, but to no effect and that is why, by pleading deficiency in service on the part of Ops, refund of Rs.1,70,000/- with interest @12% per annum and compensation of Rs.30,000/- for mental pain,agony and harassment and Rs.22,000/- as costs of litigation claimed.

2.        On appearance, Op filed written statement by pleading interalia as if the complaint is not maintainable; there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP. Besides, it is claimed that Bank of Baroda is liable to pay the cheque amount to the complainant because deficiency in service, if any, is on the part of Bank of Baroda, who enabled encashment of the cheque by a person other than the complainant. Complaint alleged to be bad due to non joinder of Bank of Baroda as party. Admittedly, complainant is holder of saving account and he deposited demand draft No.838416 dated 8.10.2014 and cheque No.508191 dated 13.10.2014 with OP. The amount of this demand draft and cheque was encashed. However, in written statement, it is neither admitted nor denied that complainant deposited cheque No.698603 of worth of Rs.1,70,000/- with OP. Op has not issued any receipt with respect to cheque No.698603 of worth of Rs.1,70,000/-. Allegation of misplacement of the cheque due to negligence of OP denied by claiming that OP not sure as to whether the cheque in question was ever deposited by the complainant with OP or not. However, cheque in question was encashed by someone from Bank of Baroda, Baba Than Singh Chowk Branch, Ludhiana by impersonating himself as Jaspal Singh. When the complainant approached Op about this incidence of impersonation, then OP claimed that they will help the complainant for getting back the amount of cheque encashed through Bank of Baroda by way of impersonation. Each and every other averment of the complaint denied by praying for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

3.                Complainant to prove his case tendered his affidavit Ex.CA along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C11 and even he tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CB of Sh.Harjit Singh and thereafter, complainant along with counsel closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, counsel for OP tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RA of Sh.S.M.Sharma, Senior Manager of UCO Bank, Mangat Branch, Ludhiana along with document Ex.R1/A and thereafter, closed the evidence.

5.                          Written arguments not submitted by any of parties, but oral arguments alone advanced. Records gone through minutely. 

6.                From the pleadings of the parties, it is borne out that encashment of amount of Rs.1,20,000/- of demand draft No.838416 dated 8.10.2014 and of Rs.90,000/- of cheque No.508191 dated 13.10.2014 by the complainant from Op bank is admitted. Dispute remains as to whether the cheque No.698603 dated 14.10.2014 for amount of Rs.1,70,000/- actually was deposited by the complainant with OP bank or not. Not only from affidavit Ex.CA of complainant, but even from affidavit Ex.CB of Sh.Harjit Singh, it is fully established that Sh.Harjit Singh was accompanying with complainant at the time, when complainant deposited cheque No.698603 of worth of Rs.1,70,000/- with OP. Ex.C1 is the copy of cheque in question of worth of Rs.1,70,000/-, whereas Ex.C2 is the copy of demand draft and Ex.C3 is the copy of other cheque No.508191 of worth of Rs.90,000/-. Ex.C4 and Ex.C5 are the receipts bearing stamps of UCO Bank showing as if undisputedly, the demand draft and cheque were deposited with OP bank on 14.10.2014. Similarly, stamp of bank on receipt Ex.C6 is there to establish that cheque in question having No.698603 of worth of Rs.1,70,000/- was deposited with Basti Jodhewal Branch of OP bank on 14.10.2014. The rubber stamp of bank supposed to remain in custody of the officials of the bank and      as such, in view of bearing of rubber stamp of OP bank on receipt Ex.C6, it has to be held that actually cheque No.698603 of worth of Rs.1,70,000/- was deposited by the complainant with Basti Jodhewal Branch of OP bank on 14.10.2014 itself.

7.                It is contended by counsel for the OP that as per practice adopted in the banks, the cheque box is kept in each and every branch, where the cheques are to be put by the customers. When confronted with the position that receipt Ex.C6 bear the seal of OP bank, then counsel for OP claimed that rubber stamp of the bank remains available for access by the customers, but that contention of counsel for OP is not acceptable because if cheque in original are put in the cheque box, then there is no need of affixing of rubber stamp of the bank on the cheque put in the cheque box by the customer concerned. Rather, the rubber stamp/seal of the bank supposed to remain in custody of the officials of the bank and as such, the customer in normal course definitely not bound to  affix the rubber stamp or seal of the bank. In view of           this, affixing of rubber stamp/seal on receipt Ex.C6 enough to establish as if the cheque No.698603 of worth of Rs.1,70,000/- was deposited by the complainant with OP bank. However, Op bank in the filed written statement, neither denied nor admitted about deposit of the cheque No.698603 of worth of Rs.1,70,000/- by the complainant with OP.Such an evasive denial by Op corroborated by the circumstance of appearance of seal of the bank on receipt Ex.C6 enough to establish that contents of affidavits Ex.CA and Ex.CB are correct that actually cheque of worth of Rs.1,70,000/- was deposited by the complainant with OP. As inference of deposit of cheque by complainant with OP reasonably drawable from the circumstances pointed above and as such, if the said cheque has gone in the hands of another person known as Rajnish Kumar Chouhan alias Sonu, then negligence on the part of officials of OP bank certainly is there.

8.                Complainant has lodged FIR Ex.C7 for claiming as if the cheque in question of worth of Rs.1,70,000/- was deposited by him with OP bank by putting the same in the cheque box kept in the premises of the OP bank. That assertion contained in Ex.C7 is borne from contents of affidavits Ex.CB and Ex.CA along with above pointed circumstances and as such, in case, encashment of the said cheque by way of impersonation by somebody else has taken place, then negligence on the part of officials of OP bank certainly is there.

9.                Even if OP bank may have written letter Ex.C8 dated 21.10.2014 to Chief Manager of Bank of Baroda for pointing out that disputed cheque has been got encashed by someone through Bank of Baroda Branch, despite that the sheer negligence on the part of OP in not handling the cheque box properly resulted in encashment of the disputed cheque by someone by impersonation, so complainant cannot be denuded     of getting his due. Complainant not only has got FIR Ex.C7 lodged,                           but even he has served legal notice dated 19.3.2015 Ex.C9 on OP through postal receipt Ex.C10 by engaging counsel and as such, certainly complainant has to bear expenses of litigation.

10.              As the cheque in question of worth of Rs.1,70,000/- along with another cheque of worth of Rs.90,000/- and demand draft of worth of Rs.1,20,000/- referred above were put together by the complainant in the same cheque box kept at the premises of OP bank and as such, case of the complainant is fully believable that he put two cheques and one demand draft for depositing purpose with OP bank in the cheque box kept in the premises of OP. If complainant was to disclose lie, then he could have claimed that amount of Rs.1,20,000/- of demand draft and of Rs.90,000/- of cheque No.508191 even has not been received by him. However, complainant has refrained from doing so. Therefore, in view of evasive reply submitted by OP and above pointed circumstances, it is obvious that there was negligence and deficiency in service on the part of OP or its officials which resulted in encashment of the cheque No.698603 of worth of Rs.1,70,000/- by someone by way of impersonation. Complainant cannot be made to suffer for the negligence on the part of OP or its officials and as such, complaint deserves to be allowed with directions to OP to refund the cheque amount of Rs.1,70,000/- to the complainant with interest @8% p.a. w.e.f.28.11.2014(date of lodging of FIR) till payment. Complainant has to run from pillar to post by lodging FIR or contacting the bank officials and as such, he certainly suffered lot of mental pain and harassment and as such, fitness of things warrants that compensation of Rs.10,000/- at least should be allowed along with litigation expenses of Rs.5000/- in favour of complainant and against Op.

11.              Therefore, as a sequel of the above discussion, the present complaint allowed in terms that OP will pay Rs.1,70,000/- to the complainant along with interest @8% p.a. w.e.f.28.11.2014(date of lodging of FIR) till payment. Compensation for mental harassment of Rs.10,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.5000/- more allowed in favour of the complainant and against OPs. Payment of these amounts be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Copies of order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules.

12.                        File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                                      (Babita)                            (G.K.Dhir)

                              Member                            President

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:02.05.2016

Gurpreet Sharma.