Complainant Raja Ram Shah through the present complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘the Act’) has sought issuance of necessary directions to the opposite party to pay 9% interest on the amount of Rs.2,98,685 for the period from 25.09.2012 to 31.03.2015  alongwith Rs.7,000/- as litigation expenses to him, in the interest of justice.  

2.       The case of the complainant in brief is that he has Saving Bank Account No.0919010011287 in the UCO Bank and submitted a Govt. Challan of Rs.2,98,685/- to the opposite party on 25.09.2012 and the same had been lost by opposite party. This fact was admitted by the opposite party vide letter dated 18.01.2014. The said amount was refunded on 31.03.2015. He did not use this amount due to loss of challan by the opposite party and he suffered monitory loss. Thus, it is clear cut deficiency on the part of the UCO Bank and Bank is liable to pay 9% interest for that period i.e. from 25.09.2012 to 31.03.2015 to him. He requested the Bank in writing but the Bank did not consider it and he again approached the Bank regarding this matter a few days back but he did not receive any positive response from the Bank. Hence this complaint.

3.       Upon notice, the opposite party appeared and filed its written reply through its counsel taking the preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable; the complainant is guilty of suppression of material and vital facts from the Hon’ble Forum and as such the complainant has not come to the Hon’ble Forum with clean hands; the complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct and the present complaint requires better particulars as there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. On merits, it was submitted that as per the record of the opposite party, the complainant brought the government challan for Rs.2,98,685/- on 25.09.2012 for its collection from Government Treasury and as a matter of routine, the opposite party requested to put the government challan alongwith voucher in the clearing box kept in the Branch for putting the cheques, drafts, instruments for clearing/collection after entering the clearing register, but the complainant did not put the said challan alongwith voucher in the clearing box for reasons best known to the complainant. During September 2012, the renovation and up-gradation of bank premises was going on and the alleged government challan might have been lost in the branch or in transit of clearing/collection. The said fact was brought in the notice of the opposite party by the complainant on 18.01.2014 and requested the opposite party to issue a certificate of non payment of challan for Rs.2,98,685/- for the issuance of a fresh government challan from the concerned court/authority. Surprisingly, the complainant kept silent for a period of about one year four months and did not approach the opposite party regarding loss of government challan. However, keeping in view the illiteracy of the complainant being labourer, the opposite party issued the said letter dated 18.01.2014 in good faith. It has been next submitted that on the request of the complainant, the then officiating Branch Manager also paid a sum of Rs.4,000/- to the complainant for payment of the same to the Advocate of the complainant for the issuance of a fresh government challan from the concerned court. The opposite party has no malafide intention at any time rather the opposite party had helped the complainant financially also. Hence, the said letter dated 18.01.2014 was issued by the officiating manager in good faith and only to get the fresh government challan from the competent authority. Thus, the opposite party is not liable to pay any alleged interest on the amount as demanded by the complainant. All other averments made in the complaint have been denied and lastly the complaint has been prayed to dismiss with costs.

4.       Counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C1, alongwith other documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C4 and closed the evidence.

5.       Counsel for the opposite party tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Ravinder Singh Chief Manager Ex.OP-1 and closed the evidence.  

6.         We have carefully examined and thoroughly considered the evidence along with its supporting documents (and statutory merits etc) as available on records of the proceedings in the backdrop of the arguments as put forth by the learned counsels for the participating litigants and also the scope of ‘adverse inference’ that may be discretionarily drawn on account of the non-production of some vital documents ignored to be produced during the proceedings. We find that the complainant has attempted to prove the deposit of the Govt. Challan for Rs.2,98,685/- with the OP Bank (for collection from Govt. Treasury) through secondary/collateral evidence in the absence of ‘valid’ deposit receipt that he should have procured while handing over the valuable instrument to the designated Bank official instead of ‘dropping it out’ in the drop-box for local-clearing cheques. No doubt, the Bank has admitted the alleged receipt (Ex.C2) of the Treasury Challan and its subsequent probable ‘loss’ from its custody but that does not absolve the complainant of his ‘contributory’ negligence towards the said loss.

7.       We further find from the complaint proceedings that the OP Bank has been actively/continuously assisting the complainant throughout the intervening period to trace out/get back the proceeds of the Challan Property and have even admittedly compensated/paid him the cost/expenses towards the re-issuance of the lost instrument. Moreover, the complainant has not disclosed the ‘nature’ of payment/proceeds of the property contained in the said instrument and in its absence no additional ‘compensation’ can be allowed lest it may not amount to an ‘unjust’ enrichment through ‘litigation’.

8.       Lastly, we are of the considered opinion that the OP Bank’s humble admission of its ‘lapse’ and its subsequent all-out assistance (including ‘refund’ of incurred expenses etc) to the complainant in recovery of the lost Challan proceeds rules out any additional ‘levy’ of cost & compensation under the applicable statute especially at the face of admitted/proven contributory negligence on the part of the complainant, too.

9.       In the light of the all above, we find that it shall be in the best serviceable interest of natural justice (or in the better interest of ‘consumer-justice’) if the present complaint is disposed of with the direction to the OP Bank to pay Rs.5000/- as  compensation and an exhibited mark of its customer-friendly service. We, thus ORDER, accordingly. 

10.     Copy of the orders be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record.                

(Naveen Puri)

                                                                                         President.                                                                                                    

ANNOUNCED:                                                    (Jagdeep Kaur)

September 22, 2016                                                         Member.                 

*MK*