Filing Date:26-12-2008

Order Date:19-03-2009

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – II,

TIRUPATI

PRESENT: - Sri. G.V.Raghavulu, President

Smt. T.Sujatha Devi, Member

Sri. M.Subbarayudu Naidu, Member

THURSDAY THE NINETEENTH DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND AND NINE

C.C.No.01/2009

Between

Sheik Janab Badullah Sartaj,
S/o. J. Amuruddin,
Muslim aged 44 years,
Superintendent in Sri Venkateswara Veterinary University,
Tirupati,
Residing at 21-140, Royal Fort,
Chandragiri. … Complainant

And

The Branch Manager,
Allahabad Bank,
Opposite V.V.Mahal,
Mosque Road,
Tirupati. … Opposite party.
This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 05.03.09 and upon perusing the complaint, written version and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing Sri.G.Ramaiah Pillai, counsel for the complainant and Sri.S.Adinarayana, counsel for the opposite party, and having stood over till this day for consideration, the Forum made the following:-

ORDER

DELIVERED BY SRI. G.V.RAGHAVULU, PRESIDENT

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

This complaint is filed under Sections-12 and 14 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, to pass an order directing the opposite party to release the loan of Rs.3,50,000/- to the complainant, to pay Rs.60,000/- for causing mental agony to the complainant and to pay Rs.2,000/- towards cost of litigation to the complainant.



2. The averments of the complaint in brief are:- The complainant is working as Superintendent, S.V.V.U., Tirupati, and is drawing salary of Rs.14,932/- per month. The complainant owns immovable property i.e., house bearing No.21-140 having purchased the same under registered sale deed dt:07.06.2008 for valid consideration of Rs.8,00,000/- from K.Reddeppa of Mallawaram. The complainant approached the opposite party during third week of June, 2008 for a loan of Rs.3,50,000/-. The complainant was asked to produce salary certificate, title deeds of immovable property as security for which he complied. The complainant also obtained legal opinion from Sri.S.Adinarayana, standing counsel of the opposite party by meeting his charges of Rs.1,500/-. In his legal report dt:05.07.2008, the standing counsel of the opposite party clearly mentioned that the complainant has absolute marketable title to the property for creating valid mortgage. The complainant also produced “No Due Certificate” from Andhra Bank where he is having S.B.Account. As per the directions of the then manager of opposite party – bank, the complainant got mortgage deed in favour of the opposite party – bank, registered on 20.09.2008 by meeting registration fee of Rs.1,850/-. The complainant also opened loan account No.59670 with the opposite party - bank. Considering the title deeds and other documents, the then manager, Sri.Rama Rao, of opposite party – bank, told the complainant that the loan of Rs.3,50,000/- was granted and asked him to come a week later as there was strike by the bank employees on 24th and 25th September, 2008. Unfortunately, the then manager Sri.Rama Rao, was transferred to Vijayanagaram and was relieved but he assured the complainant that his successor will release the loan which was sanctioned by him and endorsed on the file. However, the present manager of the opposite party – bank, is delaying the process without releasing the loan which is intended for construction of the building for which the complainant obtained approval from the competent authority. Though the present manager inspected the house property he neither released the loan nor cancelled the mortgage deed executed by the complainant and returned the documents. When once the solvency of the complainant has been ascertained and loan is sanctioned the opposite party cannot refuse to release the loan. The material available on record clinchingly point out that loan has been sanctioned after accepting the registered mortgage deed. Frustrated by the inaction of the opposite party, the complainant got issued legal notice on 06.11.2008 for which there was no reply, which amounts to deficiency in service. Hence the complaint.



3. In the objections filed on behalf of opposite party, while denying the material averments / allegations made in the complaint, it is stated that the complainant approached the opposite party – bank, for mortgage loan. The then manager agreed for granting a loan as per the guidelines of the bank. Accordingly mortgage loan booklet was provided to the complainant and he was required to obtain Legal Scrutiny Report of the Panel Advocate, Valuation Report from Panel Engineer, to get a registered mortgage deed, to open S.B.Account, to get necessary letters from the employer for transfer of salary to the bank, to get Letter of Authority from the Salary Disbursement Officer, Salary Certificate, Income tax reports and guarantee. The complainant was informed that if he produces the aforesaid requirements, upon scrutiny and satisfaction by the bank, the loan can be sanctioned. Thus everything appraised to the complainant by the then manager for grant of loan. The theory of the complainant that the then manager sanctioned the loan is invented for the purpose of complaint. After the then manager got transferred to Vijayanagram, the present manger took charge on 26.09.2008. The complainant except opening S.B.Account did not comply with any other requirements. After taking charge, the present manger asked the complainant to furnish the requirements for grant of loan. The complainant then revealed that the previous manager did not ask for those documents and without sanctioning the loan the present bank officials have been demanding to produce the aforesaid documents. The complainant has to get the loan documents duly stamped by the Sub Registrar. But so far the complainant has not submitted the original loan documents duly stamped along with the requirements. Without submitting the original documents, the complainant filed those documents along with the complaint. The opposite party did not know about the registration of mortgage confirming the deposit of deeds before the Sub Registrar office until they received the legal notice. Even after receipt of the notice, the opposite party consulted the complainant and expressed readiness to grant the loan provided he complies with the requirements. Having kept all the original documents with him without submitting the same to the bank, the complainant only to harass and put the opposite party to hardship and inconvenience has been resorting to all sorts of tactics and went to the extent of attributing deficiency of service. The complainant is giving threats to the present manager stating that he is a local influenced person and he is a non local. There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. The complainant is not entitled to any relief. Even now the opposite party is ready to grant loan provided the complainant complies with the requirements. The complaint may be dismissed with costs.



4. In support of the averments made in the complaint, the complainant filed his affidavit. The complainant also filed 16 documents, which are marked as Exs. A1 to A16. Ex.A1 is xerox copy of salary certificate dt:24.06.2008 issued to the complainant by the Assistant Comptroller, Regional Accounts Office (R.S.Z) S.V.V.U. campus, Tirupati. Ex.A2 is xerox copy of Legal Opinion cum Non Encumbrance Certificate and Legal Scrutiny Report dt:05.07.2008 given by Sri.S.Adinarayana, Advocate. Ex.A3 is letter dt:14.08.2008 addressed by the complainant to the Manager, Andhra Bank, S.V.Agriculture College Extension Counter, Tirupati. Ex.A4 is Verification of Present Employment of complainant issued by Assistant Comptroller, Regional Accounts Office, S.V.V.U. campus, Tirupati. Ex.A5 is xerox copy of letter of mortgager confirming deposit of title deeds with opposite party – bank on 18.09.2008. Ex.A6 is S.B.Account No.59670 pass book issued by the opposite party in the name of the complainant. Ex.A7 is incomplete and unfilled Agreement of Loan Form. Ex.A8 is form of Declaration by the borrower – mortgager. Ex.A9 is form of Power of Attorney. Ex.A10 is Form of Insurance Indemnity. Ex.A11 is unfilled and incomplete agreement (ADV-42). Ex.A12 is xerox copy of Certificate of Encumbrance on property dt:22.09.2008 issued to the complainant by the Registration and Stamps department. Ex.A13 is notarized draft affidavit of the complainant dt:18.09.2008. Ex.A14 is xerox copy of receipt for Rs.370/- issued by the State Bank of India-0933 branch, Tirupati, in the name of the complainant towards stamp duty and registration fee. Ex.A15 is office copy of legal notice dt:06.11.2008 got issued by the complainant to the opposite party. Ex.A16 is postal acknowledgement of opposite party for Ex.A15 notice.



5. In support of the case set up in the objections, the Senior Manager of opposite party – bank, filed his affidavit. The opposite party also filed Documentation Booklet for All Bank Property Loan of opposite party, which is marked as Ex.B1.



6. On behalf of the complainant and opposite party written arguments were filed and we have heard the oral arguments of counsel of both sides.



7. On the basis of pleadings of both sides, the points that arise for determination are:-
1.Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party towards the complainant?
2.Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed? If so, to what extent?
3.To what result?




8. Point No.1:- It is not in dispute that the complainant, who is working as Superintendent in S.V.V.University, Tirupati, in June 2008 approached the opposite party for a mortgage loan of Rs.3,50,000/-. It is also not in dispute that the then Branch Manager of opposite party – bank, agreed to grant the loan on furnishing salary certificate, legal scrutiny report of the panel advocate, title deeds of immovable property, registration of mortgage deed etc. The complainant obtained the original of Ex.A1 Salary Certificate from the Assistant Comptroller, Regional Accounts Office (R.S.Z), S.V.V.U.Campus, Tirupati, the original of Ex.A2 Legal Opinion cum Non Encumbrance Certificate and Legal Scrutiny Report from the panel advocate, Ex.A4 Verification of Present Employment from the Assistant Comptroller, Regional Accounts Office, SVVU Campus, Tirupati, got mortgage deed registered, opened S.B.Account No.59670 in the opposite party – bank, obtained the original of Ex.A12 Certificate of Encumbrance on Property from the Registration and Stamps Department and obtained his notarized affidavit (Ex.A13). The complainant’s case is that he submitted all the required documents to the opposite party – bank, and the then manager Sri.Rama Rao told him that a loan of Rs.3,50,000/- was granted and asked him to come a week later, that in the meanwhile the then manager Sri.Rama Rao was transferred to Vijayanagaram and that the then manager assured him that his successor will release the mortgage loan. His further case is that the present manager though inspected the house property neither released the loan nor cancelled the mortgage deed executed by him, that the present manager returned the documents submitted by him and that for the legal notice got issued by him the opposite party did not give any reply. His contention is that non sanction of loan by the opposite party even after he incurred incidental charges and other expenses to a tune of Rs.5,000/- amounts to deficiency in service. On the other hand the case of opposite party is that the complainant was given Documentation Booklet like Ex.B1 for furnishing Legal Scrutiny Report of the Panel Advocate, Valuation Report from Panel Engineer, E.C., registered mortgage deed, necessary letters from the employer to get the salary transferred to the bank, Letter of Authority from the Salary Disbursing Officer, Salary Certificate, Income Tax Reports, Guarantee, that the complainant except opening S.B.Account did not comply with any other requirements and that the complainant without any justification gave threats to the present Branch Manager of opposite party – bank. Ex.B1 Documentation Booklet contains formats of Application for Loan, Credit Information for Borrower, Credit Information for Guarantor, Agreement of Loan, Power of Attorney, Insurance Indemnity, Demand Promissory Note etc. Ex.A3 shows that the complainant obtained only an endorsement to the effect “No dues with us” from Andhra Bank but not No Due Certificate. According to the complainant he furnished all the required documents. Ex.A7 is Form of Agreement of Loan. It shows that one sheet from the Documentation Booklet is removed and filed before this Forum. As seen from Ex.B1 Form of Agreement of Loan is on six pages. Ex.A7 shows that he did not even fill the blanks. Similarly the complainant did not affix his signatures in Ex.A8 declaration by the borrower-mortgager. Ex.A9 Power of Attorney, Ex.A10 Insurance Indemnity and Ex.A11 Agreement are also not filled and signed. Though the complainant executed registered mortgage deed, he did not deposit the title deeds with the opposite party before executing the mortgage deed. The counsel for the opposite party submitted that the complainant did not submit Valuation Report from Panel Engineer, necessary letters from the employer to get the salary transferred to the opposite party – bank, Letter of Authority from the Salary Disbursing Officer, Income Tax Returns and Guarantee Bond. He further submitted that though the complainant got the mortgage deed registered, he has not submitted the original loan documents duly stamped from the Sub Registrar. His contention is that there is absolutely no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and only in order to harass the opposite party the complainant filed the complaint. The plea of the complainant that the then manager sanctioned the loan cannot be believed because he did not furnish the required documents for sanction of loan. Until the loan is sanctioned, the complainant is a mere prospective lone. The complainant incurred expenditure for obtaining legal opinion and for getting mortgage deed registered etc. Such incidental charges incurred by the complainant cannot be considered as consideration for service. Even assuming for the sake of argument that the incidental charges incurred by the complainant can be considered as consideration for service, the complainant failed to establish that he furnished all the required documents for sanction of loan and the opposite party committed deficiency in service.



9. For the above reasons, we find that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party towards the complainant. This point is accordingly answered against the complainant.



10. Point No.2:- In view of our finding on point No.1, the complainant is not entitled to any relief. This point is accordingly answered.



11. Point No.3:- In the result, the complaint is dismissed, but without costs.

Appeal No. FA-09/390

(Arising out of Order dated 10-10-2008 passed by the District Consumer Forum(X), Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Institutional Area, New Delhi in Case No. 1086/2005)


Sh. B.M. Gandhi … Appellant

R/o G-46/B, Kalkaji, Through

New Delhi-110019. Ms. Smriti Mishra,

Advocate

Versus



Allahabad Bank … Respondent

Chittaranjan Park Branch,

New Delhi.



CORAM



Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi … President

Mr. M.L. Sahni … Member



1. Whether Reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?



Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi(Oral)

1. The short facts of the complaint are that the complainant had a locker in Chittranjan Park Branch of the OP and the OP Bank had standing instructions from the complainant to deduct its rent from the Savings Bank Account of the complainant in the bank. The locker was broken open by the OP bank the ground of non payment of rent on 16.09.03 without any prior intimation to the complainant.

2. The complainant therefore filed a complaint before the District Consumer Forum that the locker contained antique jewelry of his mother and wife and also gold and silver coins worth Rs. 11 lacs which the bank misappropriated and that the bank was deficient in service and had been unfair on its part, and prayed that the OP be directed to pay the complainant Rs. 11 lacs towards the cost of jewelry, Rs. 2 lacs towards mental agony and Rs. 1 lacs towards the cost of litigation.

3. The OP bank opposed the claim of the claimant by filing the written statement and the District Consumer Forum after considering the evidence on record held, that the locker was broken by the Manager of the OP bank in presence of two independent witnesses Sh. Ajit Singh and Sh. Ajay Kumar Choudhary, and nothing was found inside it . The Forum also found that the rent of the locker was to be deducted from the savings bank account of the complainant which the bank had not deducted and the letters of intimation for payment of the rent were sent to the complainant against his wrong address, and the OP bank was therefore guilty for negligence and also for deficiency in service and therefore directed the OP bank to pay a compensation including the cost of litigation Rs. 30,000/- in all to the complainant.

4. That is what brings the complainant/appellant here in appeal with a prayer that the amount compensation be raised to Rs. 11 lacs from that of Rs. 30,000/- awarded to him.

5. Adverting to the first submission of the counsel of the appellant, that the District Forum did not rightly scrutinize the evidence of the complainant with regard to the misappropriation of his valuables lying in its locker, it is devoid of any substance. The complainant has not filed any credible evidence worthy of reliance to prove his valuables detailed in the complaint were lying inside the locker. As against it the OP bank has filed the affidavit of it’s Manager and that of two independent witness Sh. Ajit Singh and that of Notary Public Sh. Ajay Kumar Choudhary to disprove the claim of the complainant who affirmed in the affidavit that locker was broken open in their presence after adopting the prescribed procedure, and nothing was found inside it. There is no plausible reason to disbelieve this uncontroverted evidence of the OP.

6. Adverting to the quantum of compensation, it should be observed that the compensation should be in proportion to the lapse on the part of the party held guilty for negligence and deficiency in service.

7. As will appear in the case from the facts of the case, there has been little lapse on the part of the OP bank that it did not deduct the recurring rent from the Account of the complainant in the Bank and sent intimations to deposit rent on wrong address for which the Forum has appropriately compensated to the complainant keeping in view the agony suffered by the consumer complainant.

8. Bank Guarantee/FDR, if any furnished by the appellant, be returned forthwith.

9. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record room.

10. Announced on 9th day of November, 2009.

Complaint No: 115 of 2009.

Instituted On: 02.06.2009.

Date of Service: 24.06.2009.

Decided On: 08.12.2009.

Gurdeep Singh (aged about 52 years) son of Ujagar Singh resident of village: Mahesari, Tehsil & Distt.Moga.

Complainant.
Versus

1. The Allahabad Bank having its Head Office at 2, Netaji Subhash Road, Kolkatta-110001 through its Manager.

2. The Chief Manager, Allahabad Bank G.T.Road Branch Moga, Tehsil & Distt.Moga.

Opposite Parties.

Complaint under section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Quorum: Sh.J.S.Chawla, President.

Sh.Jit Singh Mallah, Member.

Present: Sh.Sukhdev Singh, Advocate counsel for the complainant.

Sh.Varinder Kashyap, Advocate counsel for the OPs.

(J.S.CHAWLA, PRESIDENT)

Sh.Gurdeep Singh complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after referred to as ‘Act’) against The Allahabad Bank having its Head Office at 2, Netaji Subhash Road, Kolkatta-110001 through its Manager and another (herein-after referred to as ‘Bank’)-opposite parties directing them to pay Rs.30000/- the amount of cheque and also to pay Rs.50000/- on account of damages and compensation for causing deficiency in service, mental tension and physical harassment or any other relief to which this Forum may deem fit be granted.

2. Briefly stated, that OP1-Bank having its branch offices throughout the country and one of its branches at Moga i.e. OP2-Bank. Gurdeep Singh complainant has been maintaining ‘saving bank account’ bearing no.111589 with OP2-Bank. That the complainant was dealing with OP2-Bank, hence the complainant is a ‘consumer’ of the OPs- Bank. That the OPs-Bank has been deducting charges from his account from time to time as per rules. That on 17.12.2008 the complainant presented cheque no.409927 for Rs.30000/- with OP2-Bank for collection, which was issued by one Paramjit Kaur from her account no.1632 with Oriental Bank of Commerce, Bagha Purana. That the aforesaid cheque has been dishonoured due to ‘insufficient funds’. That again on the assurance of Paramjit Kaur, said cheque was presented with OP2-Bank on 18.02.2009. That the concerned officials of the OP2-Bank assured the complainant that the amount of the cheque will be deposited in his account within 5-7 days. That after a week time, the cheque amount was not deposited in his account. Thereafter, the complainant visited the OP2-Bank time and again but to no effect. That now it has come to his notice that the said cheque has been lost somewhere and the officials of the OP2-Bank have misappropriated the cheque amount. That when the complainant again visited the office of the OP2-Bank, their officials have misbehaved and degraded him in the presence of the general public in the premises of the bank. Thereafter, the complainant issued a registered legal notice on 15.05.2009 to OP2-Bank, but to no effect. That the aforesaid act and conduct of the OP2-Allahabad Bank has caused him great mental tension and harassment. Hence, the present complaint.

3. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs-Bank, who appeared through Sh.Varinder Kashyap Advocate and filed the written reply contesting the same. They took up preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant is hand in gloves with Paramjit Kaur drawer of the cheque. Initially, the complainant presented the said cheque on 26.12.2008, which was returned unpaid on 14.01.2009, but he preferred no action against said Paramjit Kaur. Ultimately, they planned to present the cheque in question second time; that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties; Oriental Bank of Commerce as well as Trackon Courier Private Limited are the necessary parties through whom the instrument was sent for collection; that the answering OP2-Bank took every care and step for the safety of the instrument as well as its delivery at there branch end, so that the amount can be safely collected; that after booking the instrument through Trackon Courier Private Limited with the consent of the complainant when the instrument did not reach back, the reminders were sent to Oriental Bank of Commerce on 7.3.2009, 22.3.2009, 12.4.2009 and finally on 8.6.2009, but to no effect. That the said cheque was handed over to Trackon Courier Private Limited against proper receipt who ultimately informed the complainant that the parcel refused by OBC, Bagha Purana has been lost in transit while back from Bagha Purana to Moga. So deficiency, if any, in service was on the part of Trackon Courier Private Limited not on the part of the answering OP2-Bank; that the answering OP2-Bank took every care and step and provided the best service to the complainant and that the complainant is not a ‘consumer’ of the answering OPs-Bank because he was not charged anything. On merits, the OPs-Bank took up the same and similar plea as taken up by them in the preliminary objections. All other allegations contained in the complaint were specifically denied being wrong and incorrect. Hence, it was prayed that the complaint is false and frivolous and it deserves dismissal.

4. In order to prove his case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.A1, copy of legal notice Ex.A2, copy of receipt Ex.A3, copy of reminder Ex.A4 and closed his evidence.

5. To rebut the evidence of the complainant, the OPs-Bank tendered affidavit Ex.R1 of Sh.A.S.Maan, copy of peon book Ex.R2, copies of letters Ex.R3 to Ex.R6, copies of letters of courier service Ex.R7 and Ex.R8 closed their evidence.

6. We have heard the arguments of ld.counsel for the parties and also carefully perused their written arguments and evidence on the file.

7. Sh.Varinder Kashyap ld.counsel for the OPs-Bank has mainly argued that the complainant is not a ‘consumer’ of the OPs-Bank. This contention of the ld.counsel for the OPs-Bank has no merit. Admittedly, Gurdeep Singh complainant has saving bank account bearing no.111589 with OP2-Bank. He has dealing with said OP2-Bank and the OP2-Bank used to deduct their charges as per their rules and regulations. Thus, Gurdeep Singh complainant having saving bank account with the OP2-Bank is clearly a ‘consumer’ within the definition of section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act.

8. Sh.Sukhdev Singh ld.counsel for the complainant has mainly argued that the cheque in question of the complainant has been lost by OP2-Bank which caused loss to him and the same amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OP2-Bank. This contention of the ld.counsel for the complainant has full force. Admittedly, on 17.12.2008 Gurdeep Singh complainant has presented cheque no.409927 dated 16.12.2008 for Rs.30000/- with the OP2-Bank for collection. Said cheque was issued by Paramjit Kaur having account no. 1632 with Oriental Bank of Commerce, Bagha Purana. Earlier the said cheque was dishonored due to ‘insufficient funds’. Thereafter, again Gurdeep Singh complainant presented the cheque with the OP2-Bank for collection, but the same was lost during transit. OP2-Bank did not produce any evidence to prove that they ever intimated the complainant about the loss of cheque during transit.

9. On the other hand, it is the case of the OP2-Bank that they sent the said cheque to Oriental Bank of Commerce, Bagha Purana for collection through Trackon Courier Private Limied, but it was lost by said courier company. So the deficiency or negligence had not by OP2-Bank, but the same has been committed by the said courier company. This contention of the ld.counsel for the OP2-Bank has no merit because it was the duty of the OP2-Bank to have sent the cheque in question to Oriental Bank of Commerce, Bagha Purana for collection either by post or through courier company. It is private arrangement of the OP2-Bank with the courier company for the safe delivery of the cheques etc. and the complainant can not be blamed for the same. It is the case of the OP2-Bank that the cheque was sent through Trackon Courier Private Limited with the consent of the complainant, but no evidence has been produced to prove the same. Moreover, it is the bounded duty of the OP2-Bank to have delivered all the instruments in safe custody to the branch of the other banks for their collection. Moreover, the application filed by the OP2-Bank for impleading the Trackon Courier Private Limited and Oriental Bank of Commerce, Bagha Purana as parties has already been dismissed vide order dated 18.09.2009 of this Forum.

10. The contention of the ld.counsel for the OP2-Bank that Gurdeep Singh complainant and Paramjit Kaur who have issued the cheque were hand in gloves is concerned, the same has not been substantiated on the file. No evidence has been produced to prove, if they colluded with each other for the loss of the cheque in question as alleged.

11. Moreover, the plea of the ld.counsel for the OP2-Bank that Gurdeep Singh complainant did not take any action against Paramjit Kaur after the loss of the cheque is concerned, the same has no merit. The cheque in question had been lost by OP2-Bank and Paramjit Kaur has nothing to do with the same. So the complainant was not required to take any action against her for the loss of the cheque in question. In support of his case, ld.counsel for the complainant has cited the ruling 2004(2) CLT page 356 titled as Udaipur Central Co-operative Bank Vs. Anuraj Thakur, wherein it was held that “safe collection of cheques is the contractual obligation of bank if bank fails to collect the amount of cheques and takes plea that such cheques were lost in transit. It is not absolved of his obligation to reimburse the consumer for loss caused by him.” Similar view was held in 1993(2) page 19 (NC) titled as SBOI Vs. Ispal Udyog and 2004(2) CLT page 94 titled as SBPO Vs. Vishwas Ahuja. Thus, relying upon the supra authorities, we, therefore, hold that the OP2-Bank has not absolved of his obligation to reimburse the consumer for loss caused to him, even if the cheque in question has been lost in transit.

12. On the other hand, the rulings 1994(3) CPJ page 101 and 1993(2) CLT page 19 cited by ld.counsel for the OPs-Bank do not apply to the facts of the present case and are quite distinguishable. In view the aforesaid facts and circumstances and relying upon the supra authorities cited by ld.counsel for the complainant, we, therefore, hold that the OP2-Bank was deficient in rendering services to the complainant. Although they can not be held liable for the amount of the cheque, but they can certainly be held liable for the loss of cheque in question and be ordered to pay compensation on account of mental tension, harassment, agony and litigation expenses to the complainant which is quantified at Rs.10000/-.

13. To prove the aforesaid contentions, the complainant has produced his affidavit Ex.A1, copy of legal notice Ex.A2, copy of receipt Ex.A3, copy of reminder Ex.A4 and we believe and rely upon the same. On the other hand, no reliance could be placed on the affidavit of Ex.R1 of Sh.A.S.Maan and documents Ex.R2 to Ex.R8 and we discard the same.

14. The ld. counsel for the parties did not urge or argue any other point before us.

15. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the complaint filed by the complainant has merit and the same is accepted. OPs-Bank is directed to pay Rs.10000/- on account of mental tension, harassment, agony and litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Name of the complainant


Raj Vir Singh

Address of the complainant with Telephone No.

11/282, Sector –11, Vasundhra, Ghaziabad Phone:09968273236

Account number, if any: 20372852555

Type of Account: Savings Account

Branch / Office: Sector-15, Vasundhra, Ghaziabad

Whether any complaint (Oral/ Writing) lodged with Branch/Zonal Office. If yes, date thereof.


Writing complained to the branch office. Dated: 07-02-2010




The branch has deducted Rs. 15,000.00 (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) in two installments Rs. 5000.00 and Rs. 10000.00 dated 23-01-2010 from my account without intimating to me. Before this Rs 2000.00dated 13/02/2007 and Rs.1000.00 dated 22-03-2007 were also deducted from my account and I was not tolled about the same as well.

When I enquire for that, I was tolled that this amount is deducted against withdrawal of money from ATM on 23-01-2006. Whereas I used my ATM card (No.:4213371870006640) first time on 28-01-2006, not before that.

The deduction is done after a long period of four years and that to be without information.

The incident, done is not fare and requires a comprehensive enquiry.

So I request you please pay attention to my grievances so that I get my money back and I further request you to take action against the person involved in the fraud and please inform me.



Regards,