Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/114/2019

M/s ST Telecom Solutions - Complainant(s)

Versus

Yes Bank Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Harish Bansal

13 Feb 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/114/2019
Date of Institution	:	25.2.2019
Date of Decision	:	13.2.2023

 

 

•  M/s ST Telecom Solutions through its proprietor Smt. Sudershana having it office at SCF-43, Top Floor, Phase IX, Distt. SAS Nagar, Mohali (PB), through attorney/authorized person Mr. Sandeep Kumar Verma.

 

• Smt. Sudershana aged 67 years w/o Sh. Tarsem Lal, proprietor of M/s ST Telecom solutions resident of H. No. 3107, Sector 27-D, Chandigarh, U.T., through her special power of attorney Mr. Sandeep Kumar Verma.

 

. … Complainant

 

V E R S U S

 

1. Yes Bank Limited through its Branch Manager/Incharge SCO No.12-13, Ground floor, Sector 27-C, Chandigarh

2^nd address:

Yes Bank Limited through its MD/CEO, Northern Regional Corporate Office at 48, Nyaya Marg, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi 110021.

2. On-Dot Courier and Cargo Limited through its Branch Head/Incharge Local Office at plot No. 3112, Indutrial Area, Phase-2, Chandigarh.

2^nd address:

On-Dot Courier and cargo limited through its MD/Director, Registered office at 61/3, Furniture Block, Kirti Nagar New Delhi 110015.

 .  … Opposite Party

 

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY		Sh. Harish Bansal, counsel for complainants.
		Sh. Deepak Jain, counsel for OP No.1
		OP No.2 exparte.

Per Suresh Kumar Sardana, Member

• Briefly stated, the complainant firm executed work of M/s Swastika Enterprises and in lieu of work done by the complainant firm, M/s Swastika Enterprises issued two account payee cheques of Rs.5,50,000/- and Rs.4.00 lakh both dated 4.1.2017.  The complainant handed over the above cheques to OP No.1 on 14.2.2017 for clearance in his account maintained by OP No.1 and the said cheques on clearance were to be transferred in the account of the complainant or on dishonoring the cheques in original alongwith dishonoring memo were required to be returned to the complainant but the OP No.1 did not disclose anything. It is alleged that on enquiry from OP No.1 it revealed by OP No.1 that the said cheques were dishonoured and the same have been lost during transaction by OP No.2. It was also intimated by OP No.1 that OP No.2 might have lodged missing report with Punjab Police. It is alleged that due to the deficient act of OPs the complainant could not recover the money from the concerned firm in the absence of original cheques. The complainant sent a legal notice dated 21.1.2019 to the Ops but to no avail. Alleging the aforesaid act of Opposite Parties deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part, this complaint has been filed
• The Opposite Parties NO.1 in its reply stated that the cheques in question were returned dishonoured on 15.2.2017. It is alleged that the complainant has concealed that on 2.3.2017 he has moved a written application with OP No.1 requesting for change of his mailing address and he has not disputed that cheque in question were not sent to his registered address. It is averred that if the allegations of the complainant that somewhere in mid march he came to know about the lost of cheque are believed to be true then what was occasion for complainant to change the mailing address on 2.3.2017.  Besides, this the complainant also concealed the fact that the problem was in the address of the complainant. It is averred that after dishonor of cheque the complainant presented another cheque of Rs.10.00 lakh issued by M/s Swastika Enterprises in April 2017 the same firm. It is also alleged that the complainant has not made M/s swastika Enterprises as party to the instant complaint, which was a necessary party. Hence, the complaint is not maintainable. All other allegations made in the complaint has been  denied being wrong.
• OP No.2 did not turn up despite due service, hence vide order dated 14.08.2019 it was proceeded against exparte
• Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
• Contesting parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
• We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and gone through the record of the case.
• The main grievance of the complainant is that the two cheques presented by him to the OP NO.1 were not returned to the complainant alongwith dishonoring memo which caused him huge monetary loss  as he could not exercise his right of recovery  of cheque amount from the concerned firm.  
• The perusal of record shows that the dishonored cheques were dispatched by OP No.1 through OP No.2 to the registered address of complainant in the bank record on 16.2.2019. However, when the cheques were dispatched immediately, thereafter the complainant had changed his address  and intimated the same to the OP No.1 on 2.3.2017. Meaning thereby the complainant himself was at fault by not getting his changed address updated on the record of OP No.1, which resulted in sending the cheques by OP No.1 on his address registered with OP No.`1 at that time. Hence, we find no fault of OP No.1.  
• Moreover, the complainant has not impleaded the concerned firm which had issued the cheques in dispute, this could help this Commission to lay its hand on the root of the cause of the dispute. Hence, We are of the concerted view that the complainant could have exercised his right to approach the appropriate court of law  for redressal of his grievance under the provision of law by making the firm concerned as necessary party. Thus there is no merit in the complaint and the same is liable to dismissed.
• In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
• Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned

 

			[Pawanjit Singh]
			President
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana]
mp			Member