State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Punjab National Bank vs Sh. Roop Singh on 27 September, 2024
H. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION SHIMLA.
First Appeal No.: 267/2023
Date of Presentation: 22.11.2023
Reserved on: 24.09.2024
Date of Decision: 27.09.2024
.................................................................................
Punjab National Bank through its Branch Manager Tauni
Devi, Tehsil Tauni Devi, District Hamirpur, HP.
.......... Appellant/opposite party.
Versus
Sh. Roop Singh S/o Sh. Roshan Lal, R/o Village Bharnag,
P.O. & Tehsil Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, H.P.
..........Respondent/Complainant.
.................................................................................
Coram
Hon'ble Justice Inder Singh Mehta, President.
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
For the Appellant: Ms.Jyoti Chauhan, Advocate.
For the Respondent: None.
..............................................................................
Justice Inder Singh Mehta, President.
O R D E R:
Present appeal is preferred against the order dated 04.09.2023 of learned District Commission, Una 1 Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order?
Punjab National Bank Vs. Sh.Roop Singh F.A.No.267/2023 Camp at Hamirpur, in consumer complaint No. 54/2019 titled Roop Singh Versus Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, whereby, the complaint filed by the complainant was allowed.
Brief facts of the Case:
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 28.01.2018 complainant deposited a cheque bearing No.092624 with the opposite party/PNB drawn at State Bank of India for sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for crediting the cheque amount in the account of complainant i.e. No.3310000106707358. Inadvertently, amount of cheque was mentioned in Pay-in-Slip as Rs.10,000/-
but exact amount was Rs.1,00,000/- and this mistake was inadvertent as depositor failed to add one zero to the amount. The opposite party/Bank intimated the complainant that cheque has been lost and same could not be traced despite its best efforts. The cheque has 2 Punjab National Bank Vs. Sh.Roop Singh F.A.No.267/2023 been destroyed by the bank in collusion with drawee of the cheque. Issuer of the cheque has refused to issue fresh cheque to the complainant. There was insufficient amount in the account of the person who had issued the cheque. In order to save the issuer of the cheque from legal consequences of dishonour of cheque, the opposite party/Bank has destroyed the cheque deliberately. There is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party/Bank. Hence, the present complaint.
3. The opposite party/Bank has filed reply and stated that complainant presented the cheque No.092624 with the opposite party/PNB drawn on State Bank of India, Hamirpur. The cheque was not of Rs.1,00,000/- but the same was of Rs.10,000/- only and amount in Pay-in-Slip is filled in both i.e. in words as well as in figures. Cheque was sent to State Bank of 3 Punjab National Bank Vs. Sh.Roop Singh F.A.No.267/2023 India, Hamirpur for collection but during transit it was lost. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Bank. A Prayer for dismissal of complaint was made.
4. Thereafter, the parties led evidence in support of their respective pleadings.
5. After hearing the parties, learned District Commission partly allowed the complaint of the complainant.
6. Feeling aggrieved by the order of learned District Commission, the appellant/opposite party has preferred the instant appeal before this Commission.
7. Arguments heard on behalf of the parties and perused the written arguments filed on behalf of respondent/complainant as well as the record carefully.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant/Bank has submitted that the impugned order is bad in law and prays that the appeal of the appellant/Bank be allowed. 4
Punjab National Bank Vs. Sh.Roop Singh F.A.No.267/2023 FINDINGS
9. The admitted fact emerging on record is that the complainant presented a cheque bearing No.092624 with the opposite party/PNB, drawn at State Bank of India, Hamirpur for crediting the cheque amount in the account of complainant i.e. No.3310000106707358 maintained by the opposite party/PNB.
10. The complainant has alleged that the cheque in question was of Rs.1,00,000/- and the same has been destroyed by the opposite party/Bank in collusion with the issuer of the cheque to save him from legal consequences and as such this is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party/Bank.
11. Per contra, the opposite party/Bank has alleged that the cheque in question was of Rs.10,000/- only and this fact is clear from perusal of pay-in-slip Annexure R-2. It is further alleged that the cheque in question was lost during transit when the same was sent 5 Punjab National Bank Vs. Sh.Roop Singh F.A.No.267/2023 to the drawee bank. As such, there is no negligence on the part of the opposite party/PNB.
12. The opposite party/PNB has placed on record copy of dispatch register Annexure R-3 perusal of which indicates that the cheque in question was sent by the opposite party/PNB to drawee bank for its encashment. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the cheque was lost during transit when the same was sent for its encashment to drawee bank.
13. In reply, filed by the opposite party/PNB, a preliminary objection is taken that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party.
14. Perusal of the record indicates that in the complaint filed before the learned District Commission below, the issuer of the cheque in question is not made party, who was necessary party to determine the dispute inter-se the parties and also necessary for proper adjudication of the facts on record.
6
Punjab National Bank Vs. Sh.Roop Singh F.A.No.267/2023
15. The complainant has failed to rebut the aforesaid objection raised by the appellant-Bank by filing any rejoinder as well as leading cogent and reliable evidence.
16. The complainant himself is negligent for not making the issuer of the cheque as party to avoid non- collusiveness between the complainant and the issuer of the cheque in question.
17. In the absence of necessary party i.e. issuer of the cheque, the allegation of the complainant that cheque in question has been destroyed by the opposite party/Bank in collusion with the issuer of the cheque to save him from legal consequences is not proved on record.
18. In view of the above stated facts, no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice can be attributed to the appellant/bank and as such, the order 7 Punjab National Bank Vs. Sh.Roop Singh F.A.No.267/2023 passed by the learned District Commission is liable to be set aside.
19. Consequently, the appeal of the appellant/ Bank is allowed and order passed by learned District Commission below is set aside.
20. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
21. Certified copy of order be sent to the parties and their counsel(s) strictly as per rules. File of District Commission alongwith certified copy of order be sent back and file of State Commission be consigned to record room after due completion. Appeal is disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also disposed of.
Justice Inder Singh Mehta President Veena 8