State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Post Master vs Chamanlal N Patel on 29 September, 2020
1
BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ,
GUJARAT STAGE AT AHMEDABAD.
Appeal No.779 of 2017.
1. The Post Master
Post Office, Near Melana Medan
Wadhvan. ... Appellant
2. The Superintendent of Post Office
Surendranagar Division
Surendranagar.
VS.
1. Chamanlal Nanjibhai Patel
Hindu, adult Occupation Farmer
Residing at Ratanpar
Besides Bapa Sitaram Madhuli
Aaseshwar Park,Ta. Wadhwan
Dist. Surendranagar.
2. The Branch Manager
State Bank of India
Vijapur. .... Respondents
Shri H.D.Shukla learned advocate for the Appellant
Shri P. U. Nahar learned advocate for the respondents.
Coram : Shri M.J.Mehta, Judicial Member
Smt. Jyoti P. Jani, Member Order by Shri M. J. Mehta, Judicial Member
1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed by the learned District Forum, Surendranagar in Complaint no.48 of 2017 dated 11-10-2017 by which the complaint was partly allowed, the appellant/original opponents have filed present appeal against the respondent /original complainant. The parties will be referred to as per their original nomenclature for the sake convenience.
22. To dispose of this appeal, few relevant facts are required to be mentioned : It is the case of the complainant that he resides at village Kerala of Wadhvan Taluka, District Surendranagar. He is having an Account Number in the Wadhvan Post Office. He had deposited a Cheque of Rs. 40,000/- in the said Account on 21-7- 2017. Said cheque was drawn by Mahsana District Bank. The complainant made inquiry regarding the said cheque but the cheque was not deposited in his account. The opponents have not given any information of the said cheque to him. The opponent no. 1 used to give evasive reply to the complainant. It is further case of the complainant that he served a legal notice to the opponent but not replied. Therefore, the complainant was constrained to file the aforesaid complaint for compensation before the learned District Forum.
3. After hearing the learned advocates for both sides and considering the document and evidence produced on record, the learned District forum was pleased to partly allowed the complaint of the complainant.
4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of the learned District forum, present appeal is filed by the respondent original/opponents challenging the order of the learned District Forum before the State Commission.
5. Heard learned advocate Mr. H.D.Shukla for the appellant and Mr, Nahar learned advocate for the respondents.
6. Learned advocate Mr. Shukla for the appellant has submitted before the State Commission that the judgment and order of the learned District forum is not correct, just and legal. It is further submitted that said cheque was not encashed in the account of the complainant. It is lost in transit. So, the complainant is entitled to have another cheque from the 3 concerned party. It is further submitted that the learned District forum has grossly erred in holding that the complainant had suffered loss. The learned forum has wrongly assessed the loss in lieu of said cheque. The order of the learned District forum is not just, legal and it requires to be quashed and set aside.
7. Learned advocate Mr. Nahar has submitted before us that the order of the learned District forum is quite just and proper and passed in accordance with law. The learned District forum has considered all the documents and evidence produced by both side and passed the order. It is further contended that the amount of the said cheque is not credited in the account of the complainant. The opponents can reissue cheque another cheque to the complainant. The complainant is not having any details of the cheque. The opponents must have all the details. So, the opponents may be ordered to give details to the complainant about the missing cheque. It is further argued that said cheque is misplaced in transit. Due to misplacement of the cheque, amount of the said cheque was not credited in the account. Therefore, the opponents have committed deficiency in service and the opponents may be directed to give compensation to the cmnplainant.
8. We have gone through the record and documents produced on record and the order of the learned District Forum. On going through the order of the learned District Forum. It is an admitted fact that the complainant had deposited the said cheque with the Wadhwan Post office. It is misplace in transit. The complainant has not received the money of the said cheque. The complainant suffered loss due to misplacement of the said cheque. The opponents have not provided details of the said cheque to the complainant. The opponents must credit the amount of the said cheque in the account of the complainant. It is clear from the 4 record that the opponents have not given any details of the cheque nor given credit of the said cheque in the account of the complainant. So, the opponents have committed deficiency in service. Here, it is clear that the said cheque must have mis- placed in transit and for this the opponents are liable to compensated the complainant. Moreover, required care about the clearance of the cheque is not taken by the opponents. Considering the deficiency in service on the part of the opponents, some exemplary cost is required to be imposed on the opponents which may be realized by the complainant from the opponents.
9. In these facts and circumstances, the order of the learned District forum need not be interfered and modified as under.
10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, following final order is passed.
ORDER
i) Appeal No. 779 of 2017 is partly allowed.
ii) The order dated 11-10-2017 passed by the learned District
Forum, Surendranagar in complaint No.48 of 2017 is
quashed and set aside and modify and the opponents are ordered to pay costs of Rs. 10,000/-( Rupees ten thousand only ) to the complainant.
iii) Copy of the judgment be provided to the parties free of charge.
Pronounced in the open court today on September, 2020.
(Smt. Jyoti P. Jani) ( M.J.Mehta )
Member Judicial Member
5
.