State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
State Bank Of India vs Sh. Hans Raj. & Anr. on 30 July, 2021
H. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION SHIMLA
First Appeal No. : 98/2019
Date of Presentation: 03.12.2018
Order reserved on : 07.07.2021
Date of Order : 30.07.2021
......
State Bank of India, Branch Pangi at Killar, P.O. Killar, Tehsil
Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. through its Branch Manager.
...... Appellant/Opposite party No.1.
Versus
1. Sh.Hans Raj S/o Sh. Bajir Chand, R/o Village Udeni, P.O. Luj,
Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P.
......Respondent No.1/ Complainant.
2. The Post Master, Post Office, Killar, Tehsil Pangi, District
Chamba, H.P.
......Respondent No.2/ Opposite party No.2.
Coram
Hon'ble Ms. Sunita Sharma, Presiding Member
Hon'ble Mr. R.K. Verma, Judicial Member
Whether approved for reporting?1
For Appellant : Mr.Manoj Chauhan vice Mr.Vishal
Vasudeva, Advocate.
For Respondent No.1 : Mr.Praveen Chauhan, Advocate.
For Respondent No.2 : Mr.Vikas Rajput, Advocate.
MR.R.K.Verma, (Judicial Member) :
O R D E R :-
1. This appeal has been preferred by the against the order dated 06.09.2018 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kangra camp at Chamba, 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order?
State Bank of India Versus Hans Raj & Anr.
F.A. No.98/2019whereby complaint filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 (hereinafter called as the Act) was partly allowed against the opposite party No.1 only which was directed to make payment of Rs.25,000/- as compensation for deficiency of service within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order failing which interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of the order till actual payment was payable. The opposite party No.1 was further directed to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as litigation charges.
2. It would be apposite to mention here that the parties will be referred, as have been arrayed before the District Forum.
3. Brief facts, as averred in the complaint, are that the complainant presented cheque No.478371 dated 14.12.2016 in the sum of Rs.2 lacs drawn on PNB, Sultanpur, District Chamba to the opposite party No.1 on 29.12.2016 to credit the same in his saving account. When the amount of this cheque was not credited in his account, the complainant approached the Opposite Party No.1 to inquire about the status of the cheque. He was informed by the opposite party No.1 that his cheque was sent for clearance to PNB, Sultanpur, District Chamba vide letter dated 30.12.2016 through the opposite party No.2. As the cheque amount was not credited to the account of the complainant despite legal 2 State Bank of India Versus Hans Raj & Anr.
F.A. No.98/2019notice, hence this complaint directing the opposite parties to pay the cheque amount along with interest at the rate of 12 % per annum from the date of presentation of the cheque till actual payment and to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- on account of mental harassment and Rs.5000/- towards litigation expenses.
4. The opposite parties have resisted and contested this complaint. The opposite party No.1 in its reply has admitted that the complainant had presented the cheque in question, but pleaded that the same was sent for collection to the concerned bank through the opposite party No.2 vide letter dated 30.12.2016. The opposite party no.1 has maintained that it is not liable for the relief claimed. Hence prayer for dismissal of this complaint has been made.
5. The opposite party no.2 in its reply has submitted that the complainant has not availed any services from it, therefore, this complaint is not maintainable against it. Hence, a prayer for dismissal of this complaint has been made.
6. The complainant filed rejoinder in which the contents of the replies filed by the opposite parties were denied and the averments contained in the complaint were reiterated.
3
State Bank of India Versus Hans Raj & Anr.
F.A. No.98/2019
7. The parties led oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their respective cases.
8. The learned District Forum below after hearing the parties and going through the records partly allowed the complaint as aforesaid.
9. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order dated 06.09.2018 passed by the learned District Forum, the opposite party No.1 has filed the instant appeal on the ground that the learned District Forum while passing the impugned order has failed to appreciate the pleas set up and evidence led on behalf of the opposite party No.1 in true prospective and as such the same is not sustainable and deserves to be set aside. It has been further submitted that the compensation awarded by the learned fora below is also on very higher side.
10. We have heard Sh.Manoj Chauhan ,Advocate, vice counsel for the appellant/opposite party No.1 and Sh.Parveen Chauhan, Advocate, counsel for the respondent No.1 /complainant and Mr.Vikas Rajput, Advocate, counsel for the respondent/opposite party No.2 and also carefully gone through the record on file.
11. The learned counsel for the appellant/opposite party No.1 has argued that after the cheque in question was deposited by the complainant, the opposite party No.1 4 State Bank of India Versus Hans Raj & Anr.
F.A. No.98/2019promptly sent the same to the drawee bank for collection through the opposite party No.2 vide letter dated 30.12.2016. The said cheque has been misplaced by the opposite party No.2 in transit and as such the opposite party No.1 cannot be held liable for any negligence or deficiency in service. Hence, the findings returned by the learned District Forum holding the appellant/opposite party No.1 guilty for misplacing the cheque in question are liable to be set aside. He has further contended that if this commission comes to the conclusion that the findings returned by the fora below are based upon proper appreciation of facts and law in that case the compensation awarded by the fora below is on higher side and as such the same deserves to be suitably reduced.
12. Per contra, the learned counsel for the complainant and opposite party no.2 have defended the impugned order dated 06.09.2018 passed by the fora below and vehemently argued that the same is legal and valid. According to them, the impugned order passed by the fora below is based upon proper appreciation of facts and law and as such, the same calls for no interference by this commission.
13. We have considered the above rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties.
5
State Bank of India Versus Hans Raj & Anr.
F.A. No.98/2019
14. It is an admitted case of the opposite party No.1 that the cheque in question was deposited by the complainant with it. The opposite party No.1 has taken up the plea that the said cheque was sent to the drawee bank at Chamba through the opposite party No.2 vide letter dated 30.12.2016. However, from the reply filed by the opposite party No.1 it is not clear if the said cheque was sent by it to the drawee bank through ordinary or registered post. No postal receipt has been produced by the opposite party No.1 showing that the envelope containing the cheque was entrusted to the opposite party No.2 for onward transmission to the drawee bank situated at Chamba. Affidavit of the official, who had posted the envelope in the post office, has also not been filed. Even the extract of the dispatch register containing the entry of the letter dated 30.12.2016 has not been produced by the opposite party. In view of this, the fora below has rightly discarded the oral evidence led by the opposite party No.1 that the cheque in question was lost/misplaced in transit by the opposite party No.2. In the absence of any cogent and convincing evidence that the cheque was lost or misplaced in transit while in the custody of the opposite party No.2, no fault can be found in the findings returned by the fora below exonerating the opposite party No.2 and holding the opposite party No.1 responsible for the loss of this cheque. In view of this, the findings returned by the fora below that the opposite 6 State Bank of India Versus Hans Raj & Anr.
F.A. No.98/2019party No.1 was negligent and deficient in service are based upon proper appreciation of facts and law and as such, calls for no interference by this commission.
15. Now coming to the quantum of compensation awarded to the complainant by the fora below. The complainant has been awarded compensation of Rs. 25,000/- on account of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party No.1 and further a sum of Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses. In the facts and circumstance of the present case, we are of the considered opinion that the amount of compensation and litigation expenses awarded by the learned District Forum in favour of the complainant appear to be just and reasonable and calls for no interference by this commission.
16. As a sequel to our discussion above, we hold that the impugned order dated 06.09.2018 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kangra camp at Chamba does not suffer from any legal infirmity and as such the instant appeal filed by the appellant/opposite party No.1 is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed along with cost of Rs.5000/-.
17. Certified Copy of order be sent to learned District Commission for information. Certified copy of order be transmitted to parties free of costs strictly as per rules. File of 7 State Bank of India Versus Hans Raj & Anr.
F.A. No.98/2019State Commission be consigned to record room after due completion. F.A.No.98/2019 is disposed of. Pending application(s) if any also disposed of.
Sunita Sharma Presiding Member R.K.Verma Judicial Member 30.07.2021 Manoj 8