State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
1.Panipat Urban Co-Operative Bank, vs 1.Naveen Jain2. Kurukshetra ... on 2 April, 2014
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA First Appeal No.77 of 2014 Date of Institution: 03.02.2014 Date of Decision: 02.04.2014 1. Panipat Urban Co-operative Bank, Main Branch, Opposite Bathak Chowk, G.T. Road, Panipat, through Chief Manager. 2. Panipat Urban Co-operative Bank, Main Branch, Opposite Bathak Chowk, G.T. Road, Panipat, through Virender Jham Accountant. 3. Panipat Urban Co-operative Bank, Main Branch, Opposite Bathak Chowk, G.T. Road, Panipat, through M.D. All the appellants through Managing Director Vikas Sharma. Appellants (Opposite Parties No.1 to 3) Versus 1. Naveen Jain son of Nemchand Jain, Resident of 281/4, Bishan Sarup Colony, Panipat. Respondent (Complainant) 2. Kurukshetra University Kurukshetra, through Registrar. 3. HDFC Bank, near N.K. Tower, Balimal Nawal Kishore, G.T. Road, Panipat, through Chief Manager. Respondents (Opposite Parties No.5 & 4) CORAM: Honble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President. Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member. Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member. Present: Sh. Arun Kumar Singal, Advocate for appellants. Respondent No.1 in person. O R D E R
B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member:
This appeal has been filed against the order dated December 12th, 2013 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short District Forum), Panipat.
2. Naveen Jain-respondent No.1 got prepared a draft of `150/- on August 12th, 2011 (Annexure A-6) in the name of Registrar, Kurukshetra Univesity, Kurukshetra (for short K.U.K.), payable at Kurukshetra. The respondent No.1 submitted the draft along with the application form (Annexure A-5) for obtaining Inter University Migration Certificate. The application was not accepted by K.U.K. on the ground that the draft should have been payable at State Bank of India, University Campus, Kurukshetra, as mentioned in Annexure A-5. The respondent No.1 again got prepared Demand Draft and then Inter University Migration Certificate was issued to him on November 23rd, 2011.
3. Complainant-respondent No.1 filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
4. Complaint was contested by the opposite parties No.1 to 3 and 5. The opposite party No.4 did not appear despite service and was proceeded exparte.
6. After evaluating the evidence of the parties, District Forum accepted the complaint with the following observation:-
In this regard, we have perused the letter No.Regn/R-VII/II/4861 dated 21.9.2011 and Regn/R-VII/II/5507 dated 2.11.2011 issued by opposite party No.5 to the complainant and both the above letters totally favours the stand of complainant. In letter No.Regn/R-VII/II/4861 dated 21.9.2011, the opposite party No.5 has specifically mentioned that Your cheque cannot be accepted and vide letter No.Regn/R-VII/II/5507 dated 2.11.2011 the opposite party No.5 asked the complainant to sent D.D. So, it is proved that the instrument issued by opposite parties No.1 to 3 was cheque and not DD and that is why the same was not accepted by opposite partyno.5, who again and again requested the complainant to send D.D. so that migration certificate could be issued to him and as per the opposite party No.5, when the complainant send DD, migration certificate was issued to him on 23.11.2011.
In our view, the opposite parties No.1 to 3 have failed to redress the grievance of complainant and they further left the complainant to knock the doors of this Forum for his no fault. Thus on the basis of the evidence led by the complainant, we held the opposite parties No.1 to 3 only to be deficient in their services which not only caused unnecessary mental agony and harassment to the complainant but has also forced the complainant to file the present complaint against the opposite parties No.1 to 3. In view of above discussion opposite parties No.1 to 3 are hereby burdened with compensation of `3,000/- to be paid to the complainant for the deficient service. The other relief sought by complainant stands declined.
In view of above discussion, the present complaint succeeds. We hereby allow the present complaint with a direction to opposite parties No.1 to 3 to pay compensation of `3000/-
to the complainant within 30 days from the announcement of this order failing which this amount will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till its realization.
7. Indisputably, the respondent No.1 (complainant) filled application for obtaining Inter University Migration Certificate for which Demand Draft of `150/- in the name of Registrar, Kurukshetra Univesity, Kurukshetra payable at State Bank of India, University Campus, Kurukshetra was required. The respondent-complainant in support of his claim has placed on the file the guidelines of University whereby the demand draft drawn at State Bank of India, Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra branch favouring Registrar, Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra has to be submitted alongwith the application while the appellants-opposite parties have issued the cheque.
8. The appellants-opposite parties have placed on the file the approval accorded by Reserve Bank of India permitting the appellants-Bank to have arrangement with HDFC Bank for issuance of outstation drafts. Though the draft has been issued by the appellants to be drawn at HDFC Bank and payable at par throughout India. Any instrument payable at par throughout India is as good as draft and cannot be termed as cheque. It was for the respondent-complainant to see that if the instrument was required to be drawn at State Bank of India, he should not have obtained the instrument from the appellants-bank. So, the bank cannot be held deficient for the negligence of the complainant. District Forum has failed to appreciate the facts of the case and therefore the impugned order cannot sustain.
9. Hence, the appeal is accepted, impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.
10. The statutory amount of `1500/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellants-opposite parties No.1 to 3 against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any filed in this case.
Announced:
02.04.2014 (Urvashi Agnihotri) Member (B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member (Nawab Singh) President CL