State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Union Of India Through Secretary, ... vs Inderjeet Kaur Wife Of S. Surjit Singh on 28 August, 2012
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. 183 of 2008
Date of institution : 26.2.2008
Date of Decision : 28.8.2012
1. Union of India through Secretary, Department of Post, Ashoka Road,
New Delhi.
2. Post Master, Head Post Office, Court Road, Sangrur.
3. Superintendent, Head Post Office, Court Road, Sangrur.
....Appellants.
Versus
Inderjeet Kaur wife of S. Surjit Singh, resident of Gurdaspura Basti, Dhuri Road,
Sangrur.
...Respondent.
First Appeal against the order dated 27.12.2007 of
the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Sangrur.
Before:-
Shri Piare Lal Garg, Presiding Member.
Shri Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member.
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. R.P. Singh, Advocate for
Sh. Namit Kumar, Advocate
For the respondent : Sh. H.S. Saggu, Advocate
PIARE LAL GARG, PRESIDING MEMBER:
This is an appeal filed by the appellants-Union of
India(Department of Post)(hereinafter called 'the appellants') against the order dated 27.12.2007 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur(hereinafter called the 'District Forum') by which the complaint of the respondent was partly allowed by the District Forum.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent along sith Manvir Kaur was holder of joint saving account No. 138967 with appellant No.2, who deposited a cheque No. 0111597 dated 26.3.2007 for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- in Head Post Office on 3.4.2007 for collection and realization of the amount from the account of M/s Golden Agro Centre, First Appeal No. 183 of 2008 2 Malaud. The said cheque was drawn at Bank of India, Malaud. The appellants No. 2 & 3 charged Rs. 327/- from the respondent in advance as clearing charges and assured that the same will be cleared within fifteen days but the same was not cleared till date. On inquiry, he came to know that the said cheque was sent by the appellants for clearance on 23.4.2007 after 20 days of its submission. Respondent approached number of times to the appellants in this regard but of no use. The act and conduct of the appellants amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Complaint was filed on the ground that the appellants were deficient in service and prayed for directing the appellants to credit the amount of cheque in his account with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of deposit till realization, pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation on account of mental tension and harassment and Rs. 5,500/- as litigation expenses.
3. Upon notice, the appellants replied and admitted that the respondent was having joint saving account with the appellants. It was also not denied that the respondent presented cheque dated 26.3.2007 on 3.4.2007 with appellants No. 2 & 3, which was drawn on Bank of India, Branch Maloud, District Ludhiana. It was pleaded that the said cheque was sent for realization on 23.4.2007 vide letter No. 41 dated 23.4.2007 to Sr. Postmaster, Ludhiana, who returned the same to Sangrur Head Post Office with the remarks that "Maloud Post Office was under the account jurisdiction of Khanna Head Office. The same was again sent to Khanna Head Office on 4.5.2007, which was also returned by the Postmaster Khanna with the remarks that Bank of India, Maloud is not a Member of clearing house. Thereafter the said cheque was handed over by appellant No. 2 to the Counter Assistant for apprising of factual position to the respondent. Respondent collected the said cheque from the Counter Clerk and did not give any receipt in this regard, as such, there was no First Appeal No. 183 of 2008 3 deficiency on the part of the appellants. All other allegations were denied and dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
4. Learned District Forum after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, partly allowed the complaint and directed the appellants to pay Rs. 20,000/- to the respondent in lieu of compensation for mental agony, pain and harassment and Rs. 1,000/- as litigation expenses.
5. Hence, the appeal.
6. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, perused the record of the learned District Forum and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants.
7. The appeal was filed by the appellants on the ground that there was no deficiency on the part of the appellants as well as Rs. 20,000/- awarded as compensation by the District Forum is on the higher side and is liable to be set-aside.
8. There is no dispute between the parties that the respondent had deposited cheque No. 0111597 of Rs. 1,00,000/- dated 26.3.2007 with appellants No. 2 & 3 on 3.4.2007 for collection. It is also admitted case of the appellants that the same was sent to Head Post Office, Ludhiana for its collection from Bank of India, Branch Maloud. The version of the appellants is that the same was returned by the Head Post Office, Ludhiana with the remarks that Maloud Post Office is under the Account Jurisdiction of Khanna and the appellants again sent the same for collection to the Khanna Post Office on 4.5.2007 but the same was also returned by the Post Office Sangrur with the remarks that Bank of India, Maloud is not a member of the clearing house.
9. The appellants have not tendered into evidence an iota of evidence to prove their version that the cheque in dispute was sent for First Appeal No. 183 of 2008 4 collection to Head Office, Ludhiana and the same was returned with the remarks that only Khanna Post Office had the jurisdiction for the collection of the cheque from Bank of India, Branch Maloud. No postal receipt or copy of the dispatch register was produced in evidence by the appellants to prove their version that the cheque in dispute was sent to Head Office, Ludhiana for its clearance. No letter or copy of the letter was tendered into evidence by the appellants, which was allegedly received from the Head Post Office, Ludhiana that only the Post Office Khanna had the jurisdiction for the clearance of the same.
10. The appellants have also not produced any evidence that the said cheque was again sent to Post Office, Khanna for the clearance of the same from Bank of India, Branch Maloud and that the same was also returned by the Post Office, Khanna with the report that the Bank of India, Maloud was not the member of the clearing house. No evidence or list of the members of the clearing house was produced by the appellants to prove their version that the cheque was not got cleared as the Bank of India, Branch Maloud was not member of the clearing house. Otherwise also the version of the appellants is not believable that the Bank of India was not the member of the clearing house as thir is a routine work of the Banks to clear the cheques issued from their Bank Branch as well as issued by the account holders of their Branch to other.
11. However, if we accept the version of the appellants that the Bank of India, Maloud was not member of the clearing house then it was the duty of the appellants to send the cheque in dispute directly to the Bank of India Branch Maloud for its clearance and in case they found the cheque in order then the Bank of India Branch Maloud must have cleared the same and sent the draft of the amount of the cheque or alternatively the same was to be returned with the memo.
First Appeal No. 183 of 2008 5
12. It is also the version of the appellants that the said cheque was returned by the Counter Clerk to the respondent, who left the office of the appellants without issuing any receipt. But neither the name of the Counter Clerk is disclosed by the appellants who returned the cheque in dispute to the respondent nor his affidavit was tendered in evidence to prove this version by the appellants.
13. The appellants tendered into evidence only the affidavit of Sh. L.R. Dahiya as Ex. R-1 and have failed to produce any documentary evidence to rebut the version of the respondent. The version of the appellants that there was no deficiency in service on their part is not correct as the appellants had not produced any cogent evidence to prove that the appellants acted upon as per the practice of the Post Office.
14. The next version of the appellants is that the compensation awarded by the District Forum is on higher side; is also not correct as the cheque in dispute was not got cleared by the appellants and the same was also not returned to the respondent.
15. The order passed by the learned District Forum is legal and valid and there is no ground to interfere with the same. The appeal, being without any merit, is dismissed with costs of Rs. 10,000/- and the impugned order of the District Forum is affirmed and upheld.
16. The amount of Rs. 10,000/- is to be paid by appellant No. 2 to the respondent by whom the cheque was presented for its clearance. The appellant No. 3 is directed to inquire in the matter, who was at fault and the amount of compensation and costs be recovered from said official/officials, within three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order and the report of the action taken by appellant No. 3 be sent to the Commission.
17. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 22.8.2012 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. First Appeal No. 183 of 2008 6
18. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs. 10,500/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal. This amount of Rs. 10,500/- with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the respondent by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellants.
19. Remaining amount shall be paid by the appellants to the respondent within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of the order.
20. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(Piare Lal Garg)
Presiding Member
August 28, 2012. (Baldev Singh Sekhon)
as Member