State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Manager, Pnb vs Ajay Kumar Sharma & Others on 5 April, 2012
BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SOLAN, H H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SHIMLA. First Appeal No: 113/2009 Date of Decision: 05.04.2012. The Manager, Punjab National Bank, Mauhari, Tehsil Theog, District Shimla, HP. Appellant Versus 1. Shri Ajay Kumar Sharma, Resident of Ajay Raj Bhawan, Cemetery, Sanjauli, Shimla-171006 Presently Resident of Village Shangati, P.O. Shilaroo, Tehsil Theog, District Shimla, H.P. 2. The Director General, Indian Post Telegraph, New Delhi. 3. Union of India, Through Secretary (Post & Telegraph) Central Secretariat, New Delhi. 4. The Deputy Manager, Maruti Udyog Limited, SSD Department Palan, Gurgao Road, Gurgaon, State of Haryana. 5. The Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise, Division No.1, Gurgaon, Haryana. Respondents Coram Honble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, President Honble Mr. Chander Shekhar Sharma, Member Honble Mrs. Prem Chauhan, Member Whether approved for reporting?[1] For the Appellant: Ms. Shilpa Sood, Advocate. For Respondent No.1: None. For the Respondent No.2 & 3: Mr. Vijay Arora, Advocate. For the Respondent No.4: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate. For the respondent No.5: None. O R D E R:
Justice Surjit Singh, President (Oral) This appeal under section 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, has been filed by Punjab National Bank (Mauhari Branch), challenging the order dated 19th December,2008, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shimla, whereby a complaint, under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, filed by respondent, Ajay Kumar Sharma, has been allowed and appellant ordered to pay a sum of `10,000/- as damages for deficiency in banking service and also to pay `1,000/-, on account of litigation expenses.
2. Respondent No.1, Ajay Kumar Sharma, hereinafter referred to as complainant, filed a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the present appellant, Director General, Indian Postal Telegraph, Union of India through Secretary (Post & Telegraph), Deputy Manager, Maruti Udyog Limited and Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise Division No.1, Gurgaon, making the following allegations. Complainant being an unemployed youth purchased a Maruti Car for self employment, for earning his livelihood under a scheme of Union government. As per that scheme, persons purchasing vehicles for self employment to earn their livelihood, get rebate and the amount of rebate is refunded to the purchaser of the car by the manufacturer. A cheque for `21,235.62, was sent to the complainant in accordance with the aforesaid scheme by the Deputy Manager, Maruti Udyog Limited. Date of the cheque was 04.01.2003. Complainant delivered this cheque to the appellant with whom, he had an account, for collection. Appellant sent that cheque by registered post to Delhi branch of Punjab National Bank, for collection on 25.01.2003. Complainant was informed by the appellant through writing dated 30.04.2003, copy Annexure C-1, that the cheque had been lost in transit and therefore, the amount of the cheque could not be credited in his account. Complainant then filed a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking the following relief:-
i) That the O.P. No.4 may kindly be directed to issue the fresh cheque of 121235.62.
ii) That the O.P. No.1 may be directed to produce the receipt of the registered letter.
iii) That the opposite party No.2 & 3 may kindly be burdened with `50,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of `18% per annum for the loss suffered by the complainant due to negligence and deficiency in service and non-deposit of amount in time.
iv) That the cost of the complaint may kindly be granted in favour of the complainant to the tune of `4,000/-.
v) That the compensation for mental agony and harassment may also be granted to the complainant to the tune of `10,000/-.
3. Replies were filed by the present appellant, Director General, Indian Postal Telegraph & Union of India. It was stated by the appellant that he was not responsible for the loss of cheque, in transit. It was stated that the cheque was sent by registered post, but the Postal Authorities did not deliver the same to the addressee, i.e. the Branch of Punjab National Bank, at Delhi, when the cheque was sent for collection. On behalf of opposite parties No.2 & 3, it was stated that no cause had been pleaded against them and otherwise also by virtue of the provisions of Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898, the department was not liable and the liability, if any, was of the concerned employees and even the employees could not be said to be liable, as there was no allegation of wilful negligence or fraud on the part of any of the employees, nor had any employee been made party to the complaint.
4. Learned District Forum concluded that the cheque having been delivered to the present appellant for collection and it having been lost when it was with the appellant, it (appellant) was liable to compensate the complainant for the loss sustained by him and awarded a sum of `10,000/- as compensation.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
6. Admittedly, the cheque, in question, was sent by appellant for collection to Delhi branch of the Bank, on 25.01.2003. Cheque was not delivered to the addressee by the postal department. It is not the case of the complainant that the appellant was in any manner responsible for the loss of the cheque, in transit. Job of the appellant was to have sent the cheque for collection to the concerned branch, which he promptly did by sending the cheque to the concerned branch by registered post. Appellant produced postal receipt alongwith his reply. Therefore, appellant cannot be said to have committed any act of deficiency in banking service.
7. Complainant did not allege that postal cover containing cheque was lost in transit, due to any act of willful negligence or fraud on the part of any particular employee of the postal department and therefore, in view of the provisions of Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898, Postal Authorities, impleaded as opposite parties No.2 & 3, in the complaint can also not be said to be liable to compensate the complainant. Learned District Forum, has also not passed any order against the Postal Authorities or Deputy Manager of Maruti Udyog Limited.
8. As a result of the above discussion, we accept this appeal and set aside the impugned order of the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shimla. Consequently, the complaint filed by the respondent No.1/complainant, is dismissed.
9. One copy of this order be sent to each of the parties, free of cost, as per Rules.
(Justice Surjit Singh) President (Chander Shekhar Sharma) Member (Prem Chauhan) Member April 05, 2012.
N Mehta) [1] Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order?