State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Amarjit Kaur Wife Of Sh. Bhupinder Singh vs Icici Bank on 29 September, 2010
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
S.C.O. NO. 3009-10, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.1290 of 2005
Date of institution : 3.10.2005
Date of decision : 29.9.2010
Amarjit Kaur wife of Sh. Bhupinder Singh son of Sant Saran Dass, r/o Dera Baba,
Laturan, Near Arna Barna Chowk, Patiala.
.......Appellant
Versus
ICICI Bank through its Manager, Chhoti Baradari, Patiala.
......Respondents
First Appeal against the order dated 17.8.2005 of
the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Patiala.
Before :-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.N. Aggarwal President.
Lt. Col. Darshan Singh (Retd.), Member.
Mrs. Amarpreet Sharma, Member.
Present :-
For the appellant : None.
For the respondents : Shri Sandeep Suri, Advocate for Shri Pankaj Jain, Advocate.
JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL, PRESIDENT:
The point for determination in this case is whether the compensation awarded by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Patiala (in short "District Forum") for the loss of cheque was adequate or if it needed enhancement?
2. Amarjit Kaur appellant was having bank account with the respondent Bank bearing account No.1135 (S/B). It was a joint account of the appellant with her husband Bhupinder Singh.
3. It was further pleaded that on 18.9.2004 the appellant deposited a cheque for an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- with the respondents for encashment. It was issued by one Joginder Singh of Hira Bagh, Patiala. On 19.9.2004 the appellant First Appeal No.1290 of 2005. 2 made enquiries from the respondents if the cheque was encashed or not but she was told that the amount would be credited in her account when it was received from the IDBI Bank. She made further enquiries on 22.9.2004 but she was told by the respondents that the cheque deposited by her on 18.9.2004 was dishonoured by the IDBI Bank. The appellant demanded the dishonoured cheque from the respondents but they told her that the cheque was already sent to her through courier. She told the respondents that she had not received it.
4. It was further pleaded that on 23.9.2004 the appellant again went to the respondent Bank to make enquiries about the dishonoured cheque when she was told that the cheque had already been returned to her. The cheque was misappropriated by the respondents. Since the dishonoured cheque was not given to her, therefore, she was not in a position to lodge a complaint against the person who had issued the cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Hence the complaint for the cheque amount. Compensation, interest and costs were also prayed.
5. The respondents filed the written statement. It was admitted that the appellant had bank account with them bearing No.1135 (S/B) and that she had deposited a cheque for an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- with them on 18.9.2004. It was admitted that the appellant had come to them on 22.9.2004 to enquire about the clearance of the said cheque and that she was told that the said cheque was dishonoured by the IDBI Bank. It was also admitted that they had told the appellant that the cheque was already sent to her through courier. Photocopy of the dispatch register dated 20.9.2004 was filed along with the written statement. It was denied if there was any deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. Dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
6. The appellant filed her affidavit Ex.C-1. She also produced document Ex.C-2. On the other hand, the respondents filed the affidavit of Inderpreet Singh, Branch Head as Ex.R-1. The respondents also proved documents as Ex.R-2 to Ex.R-4.
First Appeal No.1290 of 2005. 3
7. Learned District Forum accepted the complaint partly vide impugned order dated 17.8.2005 and awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- as compensation to the appellant.
8. Hence this appeal with the prayer that the amount of compensation be enhanced.
9. The submission of the learned counsel for the respondents was that there was no merit in the present appeal and the same be dismissed.
10. Record has been perused. Submissions have been considered.
11. The admitted facts are that the appellant had bank account with the respondents. She had deposited a cheque for an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- with the respondents on 18.9.2004. Neither the cheque amount was credited in the account of the appellant nor the cheque was returned to her.
12. The settled law is that the customer is not entitled to the cheque amount but the customer is certainly entitled to the amount of compensation for the deficiency in service shown by the respondents in neither crediting that cheque amount in the account of the customer nor returning the dishonoured cheque to him or her.
13. In this context reference may be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble National Commission reported as "A.P. Bopana vs. Kodagu District Cooperative Central Bank" 2009 CTJ 297 (CP) (NCDRC) in which it was held as under:-
"7. It is not disputed before us that the cheque of Rs.21,000/- deposited by the petitioner has not been encashed. The cheque was lost in transit somewhere and was not traced. If the cheque sent for encashment is not traced or not honoured, there cannot be any liability on the respondent for the cheque amount. The liability, if any, can be limited to the deficiency in service. The petitioner had failed to produce any material to show that the cheque sent by the respondent to the Citibank was misused or encashed. Respondent First Appeal No.1290 of 2005. 4 being the banker of the complainant acting as his agent, sent the cheque to the Citibank for collection. It was liable to pay/credit the amount to the petitioner's account only after its realization from the Citibank. The same could not be realized as unfortunately the cheque had been lost somewhere in transit. Under the circumstances, the respondent-Bank could not be held liable to make good the cheque amount to the petitioner specially when the cheque issued was neither misused nor encashed.
8. The petitioner in normal circumstances should have gone to his borrower for issue of a duplicate cheque, which the petitioner did not do. It is for the petitioner to approach the Premier Automobile to issue a fresh/duplicate cheque in his favour. Citibank was not impleaded as party-respondent. The Citibank was impleaded as party-respondent under the orders of this Commission. Citibank on appearance has filed an affidavit that the cheque sent by respondent No.1-Bank was not received by the Citibank.
9. Although, we are of the opinion that respondent could not be held liable to pay the cheque amount but the respondent was certainly deficient in service to some extent. It cannot escape its liability for payment of reasonable compensation to the petitioner, which we assess at Rs.5,000/-. To the same effect, is a view taken by this Commission in State Bank of Patiala v. Rajender Lal & anr. reported in IV(2003) CPJ 53 (NC)."First Appeal No.1290 of 2005. 5
14. In the present case, the learned District Forum has awarded an amount of Rs.15,000/- as compensation which is sufficient in the facts and circumstances of this case.
15. The appellant can get the certificate from the respondents that the cheque submitted by the appellant has been lost in the transit and the appellant may initiate criminal or civil proceedings against the person who issued the cheque. The respondents cannot be substituted for the original debtor.
16. There is no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed.
17. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL)
PRESIDENT
(LT. COL. DARSHAN SINGH [RETD.])
MEMBER
September 29, 2010 (MRS. AMARPREET SHARMA)
Bansal MEMBER
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, S.C.O. NO. 3009-10, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.1290 of 2005
Date of institution : 3.10.2005 Date of decision : 29.9.2010 Amarjit Kaur wife of Sh. Bhupinder Singh son of Sant Saran Dass, r/o Dera Baba, Laturan, Near Arna Barna Chowk, Patiala.
.......Appellant Versus ICICI Bank through its Manager, Chhoti Baradari, Patiala.
......Respondents First Appeal against the order dated 17.8.2005 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Patiala.
Before :-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.N. Aggarwal President.
Lt. Col. Darshan Singh (Retd.), Member. Mrs. Amarpreet Sharma, Member.
Present :-
For the appellant : None.
For the respondents : Shri Sandeep Suri, Advocate for Shri Pankaj Jain, Advocate.
JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL, PRESIDENT:
The point for determination in this case is whether the compensation awarded by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Patiala (in short "District Forum") for the loss of cheque was adequate or if it needed enhancement?
2. Amarjit Kaur appellant was having bank account with the respondent Bank bearing account No.1135 (S/B). It was a joint account of the appellant with her husband Bhupinder Singh.
3. It was further pleaded that on 18.9.2004 the appellant deposited a cheque for an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- with the respondents for encashment. It was issued by one Joginder Singh of Hira Bagh, Patiala. On 19.9.2004 the appellant First Appeal No.1290 of 2005. 2 made enquiries from the respondents if the cheque was encashed or not but she was told that the amount would be credited in her account when it was received from the IDBI Bank. She made further enquiries on 22.9.2004 but she was told by the respondents that the cheque deposited by her on 18.9.2004 was dishonoured by the IDBI Bank. The appellant demanded the dishonoured cheque from the respondents but they told her that the cheque was already sent to her through courier. She told the respondents that she had not received it.
4. It was further pleaded that on 23.9.2004 the appellant again went to the respondent Bank to make enquiries about the dishonoured cheque when she was told that the cheque had already been returned to her. The cheque was misappropriated by the respondents. Since the dishonoured cheque was not given to her, therefore, she was not in a position to lodge a complaint against the person who had issued the cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Hence the complaint for the cheque amount. Compensation, interest and costs were also prayed.
5. The respondents filed the written statement. It was admitted that the appellant had bank account with them bearing No.1135 (S/B) and that she had deposited a cheque for an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- with them on 18.9.2004. It was admitted that the appellant had come to them on 22.9.2004 to enquire about the clearance of the said cheque and that she was told that the said cheque was dishonoured by the IDBI Bank. It was also admitted that they had told the appellant that the cheque was already sent to her through courier. Photocopy of the dispatch register dated 20.9.2004 was filed along with the written statement. It was denied if there was any deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. Dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
6. The appellant filed her affidavit Ex.C-1. She also produced document Ex.C-2. On the other hand, the respondents filed the affidavit of Inderpreet Singh, Branch Head as Ex.R-1. The respondents also proved documents as Ex.R-2 to Ex.R-4.
First Appeal No.1290 of 2005. 3
7. Learned District Forum accepted the complaint partly vide impugned order dated 17.8.2005 and awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- as compensation to the appellant.
8. Hence this appeal with the prayer that the amount of compensation be enhanced.
9. The submission of the learned counsel for the respondents was that there was no merit in the present appeal and the same be dismissed.
10. Record has been perused. Submissions have been considered.
11. The admitted facts are that the appellant had bank account with the respondents. She had deposited a cheque for an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- with the respondents on 18.9.2004. Neither the cheque amount was credited in the account of the appellant nor the cheque was returned to her.
12. The settled law is that the customer is not entitled to the cheque amount but the customer is certainly entitled to the amount of compensation for the deficiency in service shown by the respondents in neither crediting that cheque amount in the account of the customer nor returning the dishonoured cheque to him or her.
13. In this context reference may be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble National Commission reported as "A.P. Bopana vs. Kodagu District Cooperative Central Bank" 2009 CTJ 297 (CP) (NCDRC) in which it was held as under:-
"7. It is not disputed before us that the cheque of Rs.21,000/- deposited by the petitioner has not been encashed. The cheque was lost in transit somewhere and was not traced. If the cheque sent for encashment is not traced or not honoured, there cannot be any liability on the respondent for the cheque amount. The liability, if any, can be limited to the deficiency in service. The petitioner had failed to produce any material to show that the cheque sent by the respondent to the Citibank was misused or encashed. Respondent First Appeal No.1290 of 2005. 4 being the banker of the complainant acting as his agent, sent the cheque to the Citibank for collection. It was liable to pay/credit the amount to the petitioner's account only after its realization from the Citibank. The same could not be realized as unfortunately the cheque had been lost somewhere in transit. Under the circumstances, the respondent-Bank could not be held liable to make good the cheque amount to the petitioner specially when the cheque issued was neither misused nor encashed.
8. The petitioner in normal circumstances should have gone to his borrower for issue of a duplicate cheque, which the petitioner did not do. It is for the petitioner to approach the Premier Automobile to issue a fresh/duplicate cheque in his favour. Citibank was not impleaded as party-respondent. The Citibank was impleaded as party-respondent under the orders of this Commission. Citibank on appearance has filed an affidavit that the cheque sent by respondent No.1-Bank was not received by the Citibank.
9. Although, we are of the opinion that respondent could not be held liable to pay the cheque amount but the respondent was certainly deficient in service to some extent. It cannot escape its liability for payment of reasonable compensation to the petitioner, which we assess at Rs.5,000/-. To the same effect, is a view taken by this Commission in State Bank of Patiala v. Rajender Lal & anr. reported in IV(2003) CPJ 53 (NC)."First Appeal No.1290 of 2005. 5
14. In the present case, the learned District Forum has awarded an amount of Rs.15,000/- as compensation which is sufficient in the facts and circumstances of this case.
15. The appellant can get the certificate from the respondents that the cheque submitted by the appellant has been lost in the transit and the appellant may initiate criminal or civil proceedings against the person who issued the cheque. The respondents cannot be substituted for the original debtor.
16. There is no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed.
17. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL)
PRESIDENT
(LT. COL. DARSHAN SINGH [RETD.])
MEMBER
September 29, 2010 (MRS. AMARPREET SHARMA)
Bansal MEMBER
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, S.C.O. NO. 3009-10, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.1290 of 2005
Date of institution : 3.10.2005 Date of decision : 29.9.2010 Amarjit Kaur wife of Sh. Bhupinder Singh son of Sant Saran Dass, r/o Dera Baba, Laturan, Near Arna Barna Chowk, Patiala.
.......Appellant Versus ICICI Bank through its Manager, Chhoti Baradari, Patiala.
......Respondents First Appeal against the order dated 17.8.2005 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Patiala.
Before :-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.N. Aggarwal President.
Lt. Col. Darshan Singh (Retd.), Member. Mrs. Amarpreet Sharma, Member.
Present :-
For the appellant : None.
For the respondents : Shri Sandeep Suri, Advocate for Shri Pankaj Jain, Advocate.
JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL, PRESIDENT:
The point for determination in this case is whether the compensation awarded by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Patiala (in short "District Forum") for the loss of cheque was adequate or if it needed enhancement?
2. Amarjit Kaur appellant was having bank account with the respondent Bank bearing account No.1135 (S/B). It was a joint account of the appellant with her husband Bhupinder Singh.
3. It was further pleaded that on 18.9.2004 the appellant deposited a cheque for an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- with the respondents for encashment. It was issued by one Joginder Singh of Hira Bagh, Patiala. On 19.9.2004 the appellant First Appeal No.1290 of 2005. 2 made enquiries from the respondents if the cheque was encashed or not but she was told that the amount would be credited in her account when it was received from the IDBI Bank. She made further enquiries on 22.9.2004 but she was told by the respondents that the cheque deposited by her on 18.9.2004 was dishonoured by the IDBI Bank. The appellant demanded the dishonoured cheque from the respondents but they told her that the cheque was already sent to her through courier. She told the respondents that she had not received it.
4. It was further pleaded that on 23.9.2004 the appellant again went to the respondent Bank to make enquiries about the dishonoured cheque when she was told that the cheque had already been returned to her. The cheque was misappropriated by the respondents. Since the dishonoured cheque was not given to her, therefore, she was not in a position to lodge a complaint against the person who had issued the cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Hence the complaint for the cheque amount. Compensation, interest and costs were also prayed.
5. The respondents filed the written statement. It was admitted that the appellant had bank account with them bearing No.1135 (S/B) and that she had deposited a cheque for an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- with them on 18.9.2004. It was admitted that the appellant had come to them on 22.9.2004 to enquire about the clearance of the said cheque and that she was told that the said cheque was dishonoured by the IDBI Bank. It was also admitted that they had told the appellant that the cheque was already sent to her through courier. Photocopy of the dispatch register dated 20.9.2004 was filed along with the written statement. It was denied if there was any deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. Dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
6. The appellant filed her affidavit Ex.C-1. She also produced document Ex.C-2. On the other hand, the respondents filed the affidavit of Inderpreet Singh, Branch Head as Ex.R-1. The respondents also proved documents as Ex.R-2 to Ex.R-4.
First Appeal No.1290 of 2005. 3
7. Learned District Forum accepted the complaint partly vide impugned order dated 17.8.2005 and awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- as compensation to the appellant.
8. Hence this appeal with the prayer that the amount of compensation be enhanced.
9. The submission of the learned counsel for the respondents was that there was no merit in the present appeal and the same be dismissed.
10. Record has been perused. Submissions have been considered.
11. The admitted facts are that the appellant had bank account with the respondents. She had deposited a cheque for an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- with the respondents on 18.9.2004. Neither the cheque amount was credited in the account of the appellant nor the cheque was returned to her.
12. The settled law is that the customer is not entitled to the cheque amount but the customer is certainly entitled to the amount of compensation for the deficiency in service shown by the respondents in neither crediting that cheque amount in the account of the customer nor returning the dishonoured cheque to him or her.
13. In this context reference may be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble National Commission reported as "A.P. Bopana vs. Kodagu District Cooperative Central Bank" 2009 CTJ 297 (CP) (NCDRC) in which it was held as under:-
"7. It is not disputed before us that the cheque of Rs.21,000/- deposited by the petitioner has not been encashed. The cheque was lost in transit somewhere and was not traced. If the cheque sent for encashment is not traced or not honoured, there cannot be any liability on the respondent for the cheque amount. The liability, if any, can be limited to the deficiency in service. The petitioner had failed to produce any material to show that the cheque sent by the respondent to the Citibank was misused or encashed. Respondent First Appeal No.1290 of 2005. 4 being the banker of the complainant acting as his agent, sent the cheque to the Citibank for collection. It was liable to pay/credit the amount to the petitioner's account only after its realization from the Citibank. The same could not be realized as unfortunately the cheque had been lost somewhere in transit. Under the circumstances, the respondent-Bank could not be held liable to make good the cheque amount to the petitioner specially when the cheque issued was neither misused nor encashed.
8. The petitioner in normal circumstances should have gone to his borrower for issue of a duplicate cheque, which the petitioner did not do. It is for the petitioner to approach the Premier Automobile to issue a fresh/duplicate cheque in his favour. Citibank was not impleaded as party-respondent. The Citibank was impleaded as party-respondent under the orders of this Commission. Citibank on appearance has filed an affidavit that the cheque sent by respondent No.1-Bank was not received by the Citibank.
9. Although, we are of the opinion that respondent could not be held liable to pay the cheque amount but the respondent was certainly deficient in service to some extent. It cannot escape its liability for payment of reasonable compensation to the petitioner, which we assess at Rs.5,000/-. To the same effect, is a view taken by this Commission in State Bank of Patiala v. Rajender Lal & anr. reported in IV(2003) CPJ 53 (NC)."First Appeal No.1290 of 2005. 5
14. In the present case, the learned District Forum has awarded an amount of Rs.15,000/- as compensation which is sufficient in the facts and circumstances of this case.
15. The appellant can get the certificate from the respondents that the cheque submitted by the appellant has been lost in the transit and the appellant may initiate criminal or civil proceedings against the person who issued the cheque. The respondents cannot be substituted for the original debtor.
16. There is no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed.
17. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL)
PRESIDENT
(LT. COL. DARSHAN SINGH [RETD.])
MEMBER
September 29, 2010 (MRS. AMARPREET SHARMA)
Bansal MEMBER
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, S.C.O. NO. 3009-10, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.1290 of 2005
Date of institution : 3.10.2005 Date of decision : 29.9.2010 Amarjit Kaur wife of Sh. Bhupinder Singh son of Sant Saran Dass, r/o Dera Baba, Laturan, Near Arna Barna Chowk, Patiala.
.......Appellant Versus ICICI Bank through its Manager, Chhoti Baradari, Patiala.
......Respondents First Appeal against the order dated 17.8.2005 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Patiala.
Before :-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.N. Aggarwal President.
Lt. Col. Darshan Singh (Retd.), Member. Mrs. Amarpreet Sharma, Member.
Present :-
For the appellant : None.
For the respondents : Shri Sandeep Suri, Advocate for Shri Pankaj Jain, Advocate.
JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL, PRESIDENT:
The point for determination in this case is whether the compensation awarded by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Patiala (in short "District Forum") for the loss of cheque was adequate or if it needed enhancement?
2. Amarjit Kaur appellant was having bank account with the respondent Bank bearing account No.1135 (S/B). It was a joint account of the appellant with her husband Bhupinder Singh.
3. It was further pleaded that on 18.9.2004 the appellant deposited a cheque for an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- with the respondents for encashment. It was issued by one Joginder Singh of Hira Bagh, Patiala. On 19.9.2004 the appellant First Appeal No.1290 of 2005. 2 made enquiries from the respondents if the cheque was encashed or not but she was told that the amount would be credited in her account when it was received from the IDBI Bank. She made further enquiries on 22.9.2004 but she was told by the respondents that the cheque deposited by her on 18.9.2004 was dishonoured by the IDBI Bank. The appellant demanded the dishonoured cheque from the respondents but they told her that the cheque was already sent to her through courier. She told the respondents that she had not received it.
4. It was further pleaded that on 23.9.2004 the appellant again went to the respondent Bank to make enquiries about the dishonoured cheque when she was told that the cheque had already been returned to her. The cheque was misappropriated by the respondents. Since the dishonoured cheque was not given to her, therefore, she was not in a position to lodge a complaint against the person who had issued the cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Hence the complaint for the cheque amount. Compensation, interest and costs were also prayed.
5. The respondents filed the written statement. It was admitted that the appellant had bank account with them bearing No.1135 (S/B) and that she had deposited a cheque for an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- with them on 18.9.2004. It was admitted that the appellant had come to them on 22.9.2004 to enquire about the clearance of the said cheque and that she was told that the said cheque was dishonoured by the IDBI Bank. It was also admitted that they had told the appellant that the cheque was already sent to her through courier. Photocopy of the dispatch register dated 20.9.2004 was filed along with the written statement. It was denied if there was any deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. Dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
6. The appellant filed her affidavit Ex.C-1. She also produced document Ex.C-2. On the other hand, the respondents filed the affidavit of Inderpreet Singh, Branch Head as Ex.R-1. The respondents also proved documents as Ex.R-2 to Ex.R-4.
First Appeal No.1290 of 2005. 3
7. Learned District Forum accepted the complaint partly vide impugned order dated 17.8.2005 and awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- as compensation to the appellant.
8. Hence this appeal with the prayer that the amount of compensation be enhanced.
9. The submission of the learned counsel for the respondents was that there was no merit in the present appeal and the same be dismissed.
10. Record has been perused. Submissions have been considered.
11. The admitted facts are that the appellant had bank account with the respondents. She had deposited a cheque for an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- with the respondents on 18.9.2004. Neither the cheque amount was credited in the account of the appellant nor the cheque was returned to her.
12. The settled law is that the customer is not entitled to the cheque amount but the customer is certainly entitled to the amount of compensation for the deficiency in service shown by the respondents in neither crediting that cheque amount in the account of the customer nor returning the dishonoured cheque to him or her.
13. In this context reference may be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble National Commission reported as "A.P. Bopana vs. Kodagu District Cooperative Central Bank" 2009 CTJ 297 (CP) (NCDRC) in which it was held as under:-
"7. It is not disputed before us that the cheque of Rs.21,000/- deposited by the petitioner has not been encashed. The cheque was lost in transit somewhere and was not traced. If the cheque sent for encashment is not traced or not honoured, there cannot be any liability on the respondent for the cheque amount. The liability, if any, can be limited to the deficiency in service. The petitioner had failed to produce any material to show that the cheque sent by the respondent to the Citibank was misused or encashed. Respondent First Appeal No.1290 of 2005. 4 being the banker of the complainant acting as his agent, sent the cheque to the Citibank for collection. It was liable to pay/credit the amount to the petitioner's account only after its realization from the Citibank. The same could not be realized as unfortunately the cheque had been lost somewhere in transit. Under the circumstances, the respondent-Bank could not be held liable to make good the cheque amount to the petitioner specially when the cheque issued was neither misused nor encashed.
8. The petitioner in normal circumstances should have gone to his borrower for issue of a duplicate cheque, which the petitioner did not do. It is for the petitioner to approach the Premier Automobile to issue a fresh/duplicate cheque in his favour. Citibank was not impleaded as party-respondent. The Citibank was impleaded as party-respondent under the orders of this Commission. Citibank on appearance has filed an affidavit that the cheque sent by respondent No.1-Bank was not received by the Citibank.
9. Although, we are of the opinion that respondent could not be held liable to pay the cheque amount but the respondent was certainly deficient in service to some extent. It cannot escape its liability for payment of reasonable compensation to the petitioner, which we assess at Rs.5,000/-. To the same effect, is a view taken by this Commission in State Bank of Patiala v. Rajender Lal & anr. reported in IV(2003) CPJ 53 (NC)."First Appeal No.1290 of 2005. 5
14. In the present case, the learned District Forum has awarded an amount of Rs.15,000/- as compensation which is sufficient in the facts and circumstances of this case.
15. The appellant can get the certificate from the respondents that the cheque submitted by the appellant has been lost in the transit and the appellant may initiate criminal or civil proceedings against the person who issued the cheque. The respondents cannot be substituted for the original debtor.
16. There is no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed.
17. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL)
PRESIDENT
(LT. COL. DARSHAN SINGH [RETD.])
MEMBER
September 29, 2010 (MRS. AMARPREET SHARMA)
Bansal MEMBER
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, S.C.O. NO. 3009-10, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.1627 of 2010
Date of institution : 14.9.2010 Date of decision : 01.10.2010
1. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. (formerly known as Punjab State Electricity Board) through Assessing Officer, Chheharta, Sub Division, Amritsar.
2. Sub-Divisional Officer, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Chheharta, Sub Division, Amritsar.
.......Appellants Versus Smt. Sukhraj Kaur wife of late Shri Devinder Singh, resident of Wadali, Guru Urban, New Ranjitpura, Tehsil and District Amritsar.
......Respondent First Appeal against the order dated 18.8.2010 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar.
Before :-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.N. Aggarwal President.
Lt. Col. Darshan Singh (Retd.), Member. Mrs. Amarpreet Sharma, Member.
Present :-
For the appellants : Shri Parminder Singh-I, Advocate. JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL, PRESIDENT:
The point to be decided in this appeal is whether the demand of Rs.4,17,660/- made by the appellants from the respondent on account of 90006 units was legal or illegal?
2. The facts of the case are that Smt. Poonam had electric connection bearing account No.A34NH340637F which was installed in her premises. This property was purchased by Sukhraj Kaur respondent from Smt. Poonam vide sale deed dated 17.12.2007. She was using this electric connection and was making the payment of electricity bills regularly.
3. It was further pleaded that on 21.7.2009 the Meter Reader recorded the meter reading as 92547 instead of 02547. She received the demand notice dated 12.8.2009 for a sum of Rs.4,17,660/- with the allegation that the respondent had First Appeal No.1627 of 2010. 2 committed theft of electric energy. Hence the complaint challenging the demand notice dated 12.8.2009 for an amount of Rs.4,17,660/-. Compensation, interest and costs were also prayed.
4. The appellants filed the written statement. It was not denied that the electric connection bearing account No. A34NH340637F was installed in the premises of Smt. Poonam. However it was denied for want of knowledge if the said property was purchased by Sukhraj Kaur respondent vide sale deed dated 17.12.2007.
5. It was further pleaded that the electric connection of the consumer was checked by Ashwani Kumar Mehra, Senior Executive Engineer on 28.7.2009.
The inspection report was prepared which was duly signed by one Rana Sandhu on behalf of the consumer. The sanctioned load of that electric connection was 1.99 K.W. whereas the consumer was using the load to the extent of 2.12 K.W. It was also found at the spot that there was no MCB seals on the meter cupboard. M&T seals and the body of the meter were found tampered. The meter was checked with the help of ERS meter. It was found that the meter was running slow by 92.98%. The meter was removed. It was packed at the spot and was got checked in the M.E. Lab. on 3.8.2009 in the presence of Rana Sandhu. He had also signed the test report. As per the report of the M.E. Lab. the meter was found tampered. The previous reading was 2541 units while on the spot the meter reading was 92547 units. Therefore the demand of Rs.4,17,660/- made vide demand notice dated 12.8.2009 for the consumption of 90006 units was legal and valid. Dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
6. The parties produced affidavits/documents in support of their respective versions.
7. Learned District Forum partly allowed the complaint vide impugned order dated 10.8.2010 and the demand notice dated 12.8.2009 was set aside. Further direction was given to the appellants to refund the amount if any deposited by the respondent with them.
First Appeal No.1627 of 2010. 3
8. Hence the appeal.
9. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants was that the appeal be accepted and the impugned order dated 10.8.2010 be set aside.
10. Record has been perused. Submissions have been considered.
11. The appellants have not placed on the file the previous data of consumption of units noted from the electric meter of the consumer. If meter reading on the date of checking was 02547 or 02541 then the meter reading cannot be 92547 a few days thereafter. The sanctioned load of the meter was only 1.99 K.W. and such a huge consumption to the tune of 90006 units cannot be made even if the slow running of the meter was 92.98%. Therefore the demand of Rs.4,17,660/- from the consumer was certainly illegal and without basis. The same was rightly set aside by the learned District Forum.
12. There is no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed in limine.
13. The arguments in this case were heard on 29.9.2010 and the order was reserved. Now, the order be communicated to the parties.
(JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL)
PRESIDENT
(LT. COL. DARSHAN SINGH [RETD.])
MEMBER
October 01 , 2010 (MRS. AMARPREET SHARMA)
Bansal MEMBER
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, S.C.O. NO. 3009-10, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.1290 of 2005
Date of institution : 3.10.2005 Date of decision : 29.9.2010 Amarjit Kaur wife of Sh. Bhupinder Singh son of Sant Saran Dass, r/o Dera Baba, Laturan, Near Arna Barna Chowk, Patiala.
.......Appellant Versus ICICI Bank through its Manager, Chhoti Baradari, Patiala.
......Respondents First Appeal against the order dated 17.8.2005 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Patiala.
Before :-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.N. Aggarwal President.
Lt. Col. Darshan Singh (Retd.), Member. Mrs. Amarpreet Sharma, Member.
Present :-
For the appellant : None.
For the respondents : Shri Sandeep Suri, Advocate for Shri Pankaj Jain, Advocate.
JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL, PRESIDENT:
The point for determination in this case is whether the compensation awarded by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Patiala (in short "District Forum") for the loss of cheque was adequate or if it needed enhancement?
2. Amarjit Kaur appellant was having bank account with the respondent Bank bearing account No.1135 (S/B). It was a joint account of the appellant with her husband Bhupinder Singh.
3. It was further pleaded that on 18.9.2004 the appellant deposited a cheque for an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- with the respondents for encashment. It was issued by one Joginder Singh of Hira Bagh, Patiala. On 19.9.2004 the appellant First Appeal No.1290 of 2005. 2 made enquiries from the respondents if the cheque was encashed or not but she was told that the amount would be credited in her account when it was received from the IDBI Bank. She made further enquiries on 22.9.2004 but she was told by the respondents that the cheque deposited by her on 18.9.2004 was dishonoured by the IDBI Bank. The appellant demanded the dishonoured cheque from the respondents but they told her that the cheque was already sent to her through courier. She told the respondents that she had not received it.
4. It was further pleaded that on 23.9.2004 the appellant again went to the respondent Bank to make enquiries about the dishonoured cheque when she was told that the cheque had already been returned to her. The cheque was misappropriated by the respondents. Since the dishonoured cheque was not given to her, therefore, she was not in a position to lodge a complaint against the person who had issued the cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Hence the complaint for the cheque amount. Compensation, interest and costs were also prayed.
5. The respondents filed the written statement. It was admitted that the appellant had bank account with them bearing No.1135 (S/B) and that she had deposited a cheque for an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- with them on 18.9.2004. It was admitted that the appellant had come to them on 22.9.2004 to enquire about the clearance of the said cheque and that she was told that the said cheque was dishonoured by the IDBI Bank. It was also admitted that they had told the appellant that the cheque was already sent to her through courier. Photocopy of the dispatch register dated 20.9.2004 was filed along with the written statement. It was denied if there was any deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. Dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
6. The appellant filed her affidavit Ex.C-1. She also produced document Ex.C-2. On the other hand, the respondents filed the affidavit of Inderpreet Singh, Branch Head as Ex.R-1. The respondents also proved documents as Ex.R-2 to Ex.R-4.
First Appeal No.1290 of 2005. 3
7. Learned District Forum accepted the complaint partly vide impugned order dated 17.8.2005 and awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- as compensation to the appellant.
8. Hence this appeal with the prayer that the amount of compensation be enhanced.
9. The submission of the learned counsel for the respondents was that there was no merit in the present appeal and the same be dismissed.
10. Record has been perused. Submissions have been considered.
11. The admitted facts are that the appellant had bank account with the respondents. She had deposited a cheque for an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- with the respondents on 18.9.2004. Neither the cheque amount was credited in the account of the appellant nor the cheque was returned to her.
12. The settled law is that the customer is not entitled to the cheque amount but the customer is certainly entitled to the amount of compensation for the deficiency in service shown by the respondents in neither crediting that cheque amount in the account of the customer nor returning the dishonoured cheque to him or her.
13. In this context reference may be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble National Commission reported as "A.P. Bopana vs. Kodagu District Cooperative Central Bank" 2009 CTJ 297 (CP) (NCDRC) in which it was held as under:-
"7. It is not disputed before us that the cheque of Rs.21,000/- deposited by the petitioner has not been encashed. The cheque was lost in transit somewhere and was not traced. If the cheque sent for encashment is not traced or not honoured, there cannot be any liability on the respondent for the cheque amount. The liability, if any, can be limited to the deficiency in service. The petitioner had failed to produce any material to show that the cheque sent by the respondent to the Citibank was misused or encashed. Respondent First Appeal No.1290 of 2005. 4 being the banker of the complainant acting as his agent, sent the cheque to the Citibank for collection. It was liable to pay/credit the amount to the petitioner's account only after its realization from the Citibank. The same could not be realized as unfortunately the cheque had been lost somewhere in transit. Under the circumstances, the respondent-Bank could not be held liable to make good the cheque amount to the petitioner specially when the cheque issued was neither misused nor encashed.
8. The petitioner in normal circumstances should have gone to his borrower for issue of a duplicate cheque, which the petitioner did not do. It is for the petitioner to approach the Premier Automobile to issue a fresh/duplicate cheque in his favour. Citibank was not impleaded as party-respondent. The Citibank was impleaded as party-respondent under the orders of this Commission. Citibank on appearance has filed an affidavit that the cheque sent by respondent No.1-Bank was not received by the Citibank.
9. Although, we are of the opinion that respondent could not be held liable to pay the cheque amount but the respondent was certainly deficient in service to some extent. It cannot escape its liability for payment of reasonable compensation to the petitioner, which we assess at Rs.5,000/-. To the same effect, is a view taken by this Commission in State Bank of Patiala v. Rajender Lal & anr. reported in IV(2003) CPJ 53 (NC)."First Appeal No.1290 of 2005. 5
14. In the present case, the learned District Forum has awarded an amount of Rs.15,000/- as compensation which is sufficient in the facts and circumstances of this case.
15. The appellant can get the certificate from the respondents that the cheque submitted by the appellant has been lost in the transit and the appellant may initiate criminal or civil proceedings against the person who issued the cheque. The respondents cannot be substituted for the original debtor.
16. There is no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed.
17. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL)
PRESIDENT
(LT. COL. DARSHAN SINGH [RETD.])
MEMBER
September 29, 2010 (MRS. AMARPREET SHARMA)
Bansal MEMBER