Delhi

StateCommission

A/145/2016

AJAY KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

UNION OF INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

OM PRAKASH BHATIA

21 Feb 2017

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

          Date of Arguments: 21/02/2017

Date of Order: 27/02/2017

 

First Appeal No. 145/2016

(Arising out of the order dated 19.01.2016 passed in Complaint Case No. 33/2014 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (North) Tis HazariDelhi)

In the matter of:

1. Sh. Ajay Kumar

S/o Sh. AnandPrakash

 

2. Sh. AnandPrakash

S/o Late Sh. Ranjit Singh

 

Both r/o H.No 1998, IIIrd Floor

KatraLachoo Singh, Bhagirath Palace

ChandniChowk, Delhi-110006                                 .........Appellants

 

Versus

 

1. Union of India

Through the Secretary

Ministry of Communication &

Information Technology

Sanchar Bhawan

New Delhi-110001

 

2. The Chief Post Master General

Indian Post & Telegraph Department

MeghdootBhawan, Jhandewalan

New Delhi-110055

 

3. The Sub. Post Master

District Courts Sub. Post Office

Tis Hazari Courts

Delhi-110054                                                       ..........Respondents

 

                                                                  

CORAM

 

O P GUPTA                    -                  MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

ANIL SRIVASTAVA       -                  MEMBER

 

1.         Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment? Yes

2.         To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes

 

O P GUPTA – MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

 

JUDGEMENT

1. The complainants have filed this appeal against the order dated 19.01.2016 passed by the Ld. District Forum dismissing their complaints. The controversy lies in a narrow compass. Appellants issued acheque no. 709372 for Rs. 3,720/- dated 10.07.2013 in favour of LIC of India. The cheque wasdishonoured by the post office where the complainants had an account. The complainants had to pay Rs. 125/- as late fee and bank charges for dishonour to LIC. The complainants claimed compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- for loss of reputation, mental pain, agony and sufferings. They also claimed Rs. 125/- paid by them as late fees and bank charges to LIC.
2.         The respondents contested the case taking a plea that appellants failed to write their savings bank account number on the cheque and the cheque were dishonoured due to said reason. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.
3.         Ld. District Forum found that copies of cheque filed by the OP shows that they did not contain account number. The return memo shows that reason for dishonour was “account number required”. Regarding the copy of cheque filed by the appellant, it was observed that they contained the account number in a different pen and handwriting which create suspicion. The respondent/OP being government functionary had no enmity and were not to derive any benefit out of dishonour of the cheque. Hence the complaint was dismissed.
4.         We have gone through the material on record and heard the arguments.
5.         Copy of cheque filed by the respondent herein is at page no. 72. In copy at page 72, the space marked for account number has been cut across. The appellant submitted that the said copies are scanned copies in which the account number has been made to disappear. As compared to it the copy of cheque number 709372 filed by the appellant is at page 51. The same contains account number. It is true that account number has been filled in different hand writing than the remaining part of the cheque. But that alone is not sufficient to doubt the veracity.
6.         It may be that account number was filled at the time of issue of cheque book by one person whereas the remaining body of the cheque was filled up by different person at the time of issue of cheque. It is pertinent to mention here that dishonourmemo contains remarks ‘Insufficient Funds’ which is factually incorrect.
7.         Moreover it is the duty of the bank/post office issuing the cheque book to put account number at the proper space before issuing the cheque book. It is a different matter that the authorities do handover the cheque book to the account holder and request them to fill up the account number himself as they do not have the requisite staff. But that does not absolve them from duty to mention the account number in the cheque.
8.         Any how the compensation claimed by the complainant is highly exaggerated. The total value of the cheque is Rs. 3720/-. Consumer Protection Act is not meant for enriching the complainant. Compensation has to be just and reasonable. We feel that compensation of Rs. 5,000/- would be sufficient.
9.         For the forgoing reasons appeal is accepted. Impugned order is set aside and complaint is allowed in part. The respondents are directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation. Order be complied within two months.
10. Copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of costs.
11. One copy of the order be sent to District Forum for information.

 

(O P GUPTA)

MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

 

 

(ANIL SRIVASTAVA)​

MEMBER