State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mohinder Pal Singh vs Punjab & Sind Bank on 8 June, 2012
2nd Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.1476 of 2007.
Date of Institution: 08.11.2007.
Date of Decision: 08.06.2012.
Mohinder Pal Singh S/o Sh. Manmohan Singh, HJ-385, Bhai Randhir Singh
Nagar, Ludhiana.
.....Appellant.
Versus
Punjab & Sind Bank, Kalgidhar Road Branch, Ludhiana through its Manager.
...Respondent.
First Appeal against the order dated
07.09.2007 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana.
Before:-
Shri Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Member.
Shri Piare Lal Garg, Member.
Present:- Sh. Hitesh Sood, Advocate, counsel for the appellant.
Sh. Ashok Kumar, Advocate, counsel for the respondent.
----------------------------------------
INDERJIT KAUSHIK, PRESIDING MEMBER:-
Sh. Mohinder Pal Singh, appellant (In short "the appellant") has filed this appeal against the order dated 07.09.2007 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana (in short "the District Forum").
2. Facts in brief are that the appellant filed a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act"). It was pleaded that the appellant is having a S.F. account no.12489 with the respondent bank and on 02.06.2006, he presented a cheque bearing no.00943 dated 01.06.2006 for Rs.3,26,000/- drawn on State Bank of India, Rishi Kesh Branch, for clearance. The respondent bank assured that the cheque will be sent through clearing house and will be encashed in due course.
First Appeal No.1476 of 2007 2
3. After some time, the appellant inquired about the cheque, but the respondent bank did not give any response and ultimately on 28.06.2006, it was told that the cheque has been lost in transit and gave a certificate to that effect, mentioning that the cheque was sent for collection to the branch at Rishi Kesh through dispatch no.521/216130 through courier service and the same has been lost.
4. The said act of the respondent bank amounts to deficiency in service on its part. The respondent bank was duty bound to take necessary steps to trace out the cheque and to get the same encashed, but that was not done and the appellant suffered loss to the tune of Rs.3,26,000/-. He also suffered mental agony, tension and is entitled to Rs.50,000/- as compensation along with interest. The appellant made several requests to locate the cheque or to make the payment, but the respondent bank refused. A legal notice was also served upon respondent on 01.07.2006.
5. It was prayed that the respondent bank be directed to make payment of Rs.3,26,000/- i.e. the actual amount of the cheque along with interest @ 12% p.a. on the amount of cheque from the date of its presentation till payment and Rs.50,000/- as compensation.
6. In the reply filed on behalf of the respondent bank, preliminary objections were taken that the appellant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and has concealed the true facts. In fact, the appellant is having the saving bank account no.12489 and on 02.06.2006, deposited a cheque for Rs.3,26,000/- bearing no.000943 dated 01.06.2006 drawn on State Bank of India, Rishi Kesh Branch, Rishi Kesh for collection. The respondent bank immediately sent the same for collection through courier service named as Super Air Express Couriers, Upstairs, Gian's Vaishno Dhaba, near Clock Tower, G.T. Road, Ludhiana on 03.06.2006 vide dispatch no.521/216130, but the said cheque was lost in transit by the said courier service and the courier service on 06.06.2006 lodged an FIR regarding the loss of the said cheque along with other documents with the Police Station, G.R.P. Railway Station, First Appeal No.1476 of 2007 3 Ghaziabad. The respondent bank has been pursuing the courier service as well as State Bank of India, Rishi Kesh for the proceeds of the cheque and finally on 28.06.2006, the courier service informed about the loss of the cheque and the same was conveyed to the appellant. The notice was replied. The respondent bank made correspondence with Rishi Kesh branch and asked the said bank nor to make the payment of the said cheque. The correspondence is still going on with the said State Bank of India, Branch Rishi Kesh. After going through the facts and the documents, it was proved that the appellant deposited a fake cheque for collection to grab public money and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent bank and the complaint is not maintainable.
7. On merits, similar pleas as taken in preliminary objections were repeated and denying allegations of the complaint, it was prayed that the complaint may be dismissed.
8. Parties led evidence in support of their respective contentions by way of affidavits and documents.
9. After going through the documents and material placed on file and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned District Forum observed that the appellant is not entitled to the amount of the cheque, but he is entitled to compensation on account of deficiency in service, and directed the respondent bank to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation.
10. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 07.09.2007, the appellant has come up in appeal.
11. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, perused the record of the learned District Forum and have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.
12. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the cheque of Rs.3,26,000/- was presented for encashment with the respondent bank, but the same was lost in transit and now the appellant is unable to recover this amount as the person, who gave the cheque, refused to give another cheque First Appeal No.1476 of 2007 4 and the said cheque was never presented by him before any bank earlier, nor it was dishonoured and meager payment of compensation is not sufficient to no get the relief of the amount of Rs.3,26,000/-. It was contended that as per the letter dated 11.06.2010 of State Bank of India, Rishi Kesh branch, it was informed that the cheque book bearing no.000941 to 960 has been issued to Sh. Gurmeet Singh Bedi, 47, Nirmala Nand Niwas, Dehradun Road, Rishi Kesh. It was argued that the cheque was genuinely issued by said Gurmeet Singh Bedi and now he has refused to issue another cheque and the appellant cannot get his money recovered and is not able to file any compliant or avail any other legal remedy. It was prayed that the appeal may be accepted and the respondent bank may be directed to pay the cheque amount as well as to enhance the compensation along with interest.
13. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent bank has contended that the respondent bank is not deficient in service in any manner. The cheque bearing no.000943 dated 01.06.2006 for Rs.3,26,000/- given by the appellant was sent for collection to State Bank of India, Rishi Kesh Branch, Rishi Kesh through courier service, but the same was lost in transit and FIR was got recorded. The respondent bank has been corresponding with State Bank of India, Rishi Kesh branch to send the proceeds and not to give the payment to anybody else. The respondent bank has made all efforts and the documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-11 prove the same. The respondent bank is not deficient in service in any manner. The amount of the cheque cannot be refunded in any manner and the appeal may be dismissed.
14. We have considered the respective submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have minutely scrutinized the entire record and material placed on the file.
15. Admittedly, the appellant presented the cheque bearing no.000943 dated 01.06.2006 for a sum of Rs.3,26,000/- to the respondent bank and the respondent bank sent the same for collection to the State Bank of India, Rishi Kesh Branch, Rishi Kesh but during transit, it was lost. The First Appeal No.1476 of 2007 5 respondent bank wrote letter Annexure R-5, requesting its branch at Rishikesh(UP) to send special messenger to State Bank of India, Laxman Jhulla Branch to know about the fate of the cheque. The Rishi Kesh Branch of the Bank vide letter Annexure R-6 dated 19.09.2006 informed that the said cheque has not been presented till date and in the absence of the original cheque, no payment is possible. The drawee bank also wrote letters Annexure R-9, Annexure R-10 and Annexure R-11, informing that no cheque has been received for encashment and also requested to send the photocopy of the cheque to further proceed in the matter. Vide letter dated 11.06.2010, the drawee bank confirmed that cheque book 000941 to 960 has been issued by their branch to Sh. Gurmeet Singh Bedi, 47, Nirmala Nand Niwas, Dehradun Road, Rishi Kesh.
16. Thus, from the above, it is clear that the cheque bearing no.000943 was issued by said Gurmeet Singh Bedi, but the same was lost in transit. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the respondent bank is liable to pay the amount of the cheque is not tenable and as per the settled law, only the compensation can be awarded. Hon'ble National Commission in case 'State Bank of Patiala Vs Vishwas Ahuja', 2007(1) ISJ (Banking)-432(NC) observed in Para-3(relevant portion) as follows:-
"Ratio in RP No.2510 of 2002 'State Bank of Patiala Vs Rajender Lal & Anr.", decided on 13.05.2003(NC) is that the bank cannot be made to pay the entire amount of cheque if it is legally open to the complainant to initiate civil/criminal action based on the cheque against drawer and bank is liable only to pay reasonable compensation to the complainant"..
17. The appellant is at liberty to seek other legal remedies available to him for recovering the amount of the cheque. The District Forum has awarded the compensation to the tune of Rs.25,000/- only, which in our First Appeal No.1476 of 2007 6 opinion, is required to be enhanced, looking into the mental tension, harassment and the financial loss suffered by the appellant.
18. In view of above discussion, the appeal filed by the appellant is partly accepted and the impugned order dated 07.09.2007 under appeal passed by the District Forum is modified to the extent that the compensation of Rs.25,000/- awarded by the District Forum is enhanced to Rs.50,000/-. No order as to costs. The order shall be complied by the respondent bank within 2 months of receipt of copy of order.
19. The appellant if so advised may seek any other legal remedy, including filing of the suit for recovery. Since the appellant has been pursuing the complaint filed before the District Forum and the present appeal in good faith, as such, the time spent from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 17.07.2006 till the decision of this appeal i.e. 08.06.2012 is ordered to be excluded from the period of limitation provided for recourse to the legal remedy whatsoever chosen by the appellant.
20. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 29.05.2012 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
21. The appeal could not be decided within the stipulated timeframe due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(Inderjit Kaushik) Presiding Member (Piare Lal Garg) Member June 08, 2012.
(Gurmeet S)