Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/598/2019

Shashi Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Yes Bank Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

15 Mar 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint  No	:	598 of 2019
Date  of  Institution	:	02.07.2019
Date   of   Decision	:	15.03.2023

 

 

 

 

 

Shashi Kumar, #304, H Block, Rail Vihar, M.D.C.-4, Panchkula, Haryana 134114

 

            …..Complainant

 

Versus

1]  Yes Bank Ltd., Ground Floor, SCO 818, NAC Manimajra, U.T., Chandigarh PIN 160101 through Manager and authorized signatory.

2]  Yes Bank Ltd., through Head – Grievance Redressal Bhupinder Pal Singh/Priti Yennemadi, Yes bank Limited 5^th Floor, IFC, Yes Bank Tower, Elphinstone (W) Mumbai 400013

3]  M/s Trackon Couriers Private Limited, Plot NO.112, Adarsh Colony, Ground Floor, Balongi, Mohali through its Branch Manager.

    2^nd Address:- M/s Trackon Courier Private Limited, Plot No.120, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager.

    ….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  MR.AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU,       PRESIDENT

MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER 

                MR.B.M.SHARMA                 MEMBER

 

                               

Argued by  : Sh.Devinder Kumar, Counsel for complainant

              Sh.Deepak Jain, Counsel for OPs No.1 & 2

              Sh.Hoshiar Singh, Counsel for OP No.3

 

PER B. M. SHARMA, MEMBER

         The case of the complainant precisely is that he deposited a cheque of Rs.25,000/- with OP NO.1 Bank on 10.10.2018, which got bounced due to insufficient balance. He went to the Bank to collect cheque but he was informed that the cheque was sent to his address by courier but on checking with courier, it was informed that the same was returned to the Bank. However, OP No.1-Bank stated that they have not received back the said cheque. The complainant registered a complaint through customer care against OP No.1 (Ann.C-2) but received a message regarding closure of the complaint.  Then complainant sent an e-mail dated 20.11.2018 (Ann.C-3) to the Bank as well as to Head Grievance of OPs and exchanged numerous emails but to no effect.  It is submitted that the complainant took loan from Yes Bank and HDFC Bank for personal purpose but due to this, he was unable to pay the EMI and they charged penalty for late payment every month. Hence the present complaint has been preferred alleging the aforesaid acts as deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.

 

2]       The OPs No.1 & 2 (Yes Bank) have filed joint written statement and while admitting the factual matrix of the case have stated that the factum of cheque being sent through courier agency is known to the complainant and admitted by him. It is stated that the reasons why cheque could not be delivered or why it was lost were in the domain of courier company, who is solely responsible for the same.  It stated that the complainant has not stated that the cheque in question was not sent by OPs at the correct address.  It is submitted that when certificate of courier was issued to him and copy of cheque and return memo was also with him then what prevented him to file complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instructions Act as evidence of the OPs could have been led to prove the matter. However, the complainant has concealed the fact from this Commission that on 26.10.2018, he moved written application for change of address with the OPs-Bank. Moreover, the cheque in question was returned dis-honoured vide return memo dated 16.10.2018 and dispatched through courier on 17.10.2018 (Ann.OP-2 to OP-3). Denying other allegations and pleading no deficiency in service, the OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

        The OP No.3 (Trackon Courier) filed reply stating that there is no privity of contract between it and the complainant.  It is stated that the complainant has not placed on record the courier receipt.  It is stated that it is not possible to locate the record of more than 3 years back especially when almost 3 lacs packets are carried every day and that is why there is stipulation in the courier receipt that no claim was to be entertained beyond 30 days and even online data gets erased after 75 days. It has been stated that in the absence of any pre-declared consignment, they are at best liable to pay 4 times, the courier charges as per the norms of courier industry or Rs.100/- in case of packet of documents or Rs.2000/- in case of parcels. Pleading no deficiency in service, OP No.3 also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

3]      Complainant filed replications controverting the stand of OPs as in their reply.

4]      Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]      We have heard the Counsel for the contesting parties and have gone through the documents on record.

 

6]      The perusal of the record reveals that it is an admitted fact that the cheque in question, deposited by the complainant with OP Bank, was dishonoured and it was returned along with memo and was dispatched by OP Bank through OP No.3 to be delivered to the complainant.  It is also admitted by the OP Bank that courier company i.e. OP NO.3 confirmed the loss of the cheque in question. Thus it is clear that the complainant did not get the original dishonoured cheque from OP Bank and therefore has been deprived of his legal right to file a case under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act against the account holder.  More so, the services of the courier agency i.e. OP No.3 has been hired by the OP Bank and not by the complainant, so it was for the OP Bank to deal the matter with its courier agency and not for the complainant. Therefore, the deficiency in service on the part of OP Bank is proved, which certainly caused loss and harassment to the complainant.

 

7]      Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi passed in R.P. No.2028 of 2016 – Manager, Bank of Baroda & Anr. Vs. Chitrodiya Babuji Divanji, decided on 19.07.2019, wherein an identical issue, as in the present complaint, has been dealt with.

 

8]      Taking into consideration the above discussion & findings as well as settled position of law, we are of the opinion that the deficiency in service has been proved on the part of OP Bank i.e. OPs No.1 & 2. Therefore, the complaint stands allowed against the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 with direction to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant along with interest @10% p.a. from the date of loss i.e. 7.1.2019 (Ann.OP-4) till its realization.  The OPs No.1 & 2 are also directed to pay complainant compensation amount of Rs.10,000/- along with litigation cost of Rs.7,000/-. 

        This order shall be complied with by the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which they shall be liable to pay additional compensatory cost of Rs.5000/- apart from above relief.   

9]      The complaint qua OP No.3 stands dismissed.

         Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. After compliance, file be consigned to record room.

Announced

15^th March, 2023                                                            Sd/-  

 (AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(B.M.SHARMA)

MEMBER