Haryana

Karnal

261/12

Pardeep Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Corporation Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Rajiv Gupta

09 Aug 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

                                                                 Complaint No.261 of 2012

                                                               Date of instt.: 22.05.2012

                                                                 Date of decision: 9.8.2016

 

Pardeep Kumar son of Sh. Kishan Chand, resident of Johrian Kuwan, Inside Jundla Gatem, Karnal.

 

                                                                   ……..Complainant.

                                      Vs.

1. Corporation Bank, Mehfil Building, opposite Tehsil, G.T. Road, Karnal through its Branch Manager.

2. The Chief Manager, Corporation Bank, SCO no.137-138, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, P.B. No.209, Chandigarh.

3. Speed Post Centre, Department of Posts, Old Kunjpura Road, opposite Suvidha Garments, Karnal through its Manager.

 

                                                                   ………… Opposite Parties.

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before                   Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:-       Sh. Pawan Kumar Goel  Advocate for the complainant.

                     Sh. Suresh Khanna Advocate for the Opposite parties.

                    

 ORDER:

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer protection Act 1986, on the averments that he was having Savings Bank Account no.001917 with the opposite party no.1. On 01.02.2011, he deposited cheque bearing no.0402490 dated 1.2.2011 for an amount of Rs.18,300/- in his said account for encashment. When the said cheque was not credited in his account for long period, he enquired from opposite party no.1 about the status of the cheque, but opposite party no.1 gave evasive reply that the cheque was of outstation, therefore, the same was sent to Head Office and would be cleared/encashed very soon. After 10-15 days he again enquired from opposite party no.1 regarding encashment of the said cheque and on that the opposite party no.1 replied that the cheque in dispute might have been lost in transit by Postal Authorities, otherwise the same would have been encashed till then. Therefore, he approached Postal Authorities i.e. opposite party no.2 for knowing the status of his cheque. Postal Authorities, vide letter dated 3.5.2011 informed that the article of the speed post no. EH269033644In dated 2.2.2011 was delivered to the addressee properly. Thereafter, opposite party no.1 also wrote a communication dated 31.5.2011 to the Head Office to know about the status of the cheque. He visited the opposite party no.1 time and again, but all in vain. Ultimately, he got issued legal-cum-demand notice dated 3.6.2011 to opposite parties no.1 and 3, but the same also did not yield any result. In this way, there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party no.1 due to which he suffered financial loss apart from mental pain, agony and harassment.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties. Opposite party no.1 filed written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complaint is not legally maintainable; that complainant has got no cause of action and that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party no.1.

                   On merits, it has been submitted that the instrument submitted by the complainant was sent for clearing to the concerned Branch, vide dispatch no.EH-269033644-IN dated 2.2.2011. Thus, there was no fault on the part of the opposite party no.1 and it always gave best services to the complainant. Search for the cheque of the complainant is still going on. The factum of receiving the legal notice has been admitted. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied.

3.                Opposite party no.2 filed separate written statement controverting the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complainant has got no cause of action and that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

                   On merits, it has been pleaded that opposite party no.2 had received an envelop from opposite party no.1 by way of registered post on 3.2.2011. The said envelop was in open condition and empty. The cheque in question seemed to have slipped out of the open envelop in transit and that fact was brought to the notice of the opposite party no.1. Thereafter, opposite party no.1 might have initiated action against the reported missing contents of the envelop. In this way, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party no.2 and complaint against it is not maintainable.

4.                Opposite party no.3 also filed written statement. Objections have been raised that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form; that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties; that the complainant has no locus standi and cause of action to file the complaint; that the complaint is bad for want of notice under section 80 of Code of Civil Procedure and that the complainant is not a consumer of opposite party no.3.

                   On merits, it has only been submitted that the complainant has no complaint against the postal department, rather postal authority accommodated him even as per his version in the complaint.

5.                In evidence of the complainant, his affidavit Ex. C1 and documents Ex.C2 to C7 have been tendered.

6.                On the other hand, in evidence of the opposite parties, affidavit of Gurmail Singh Senior Manager Ex.OP2/A, affidavit of Darshan Singh Ex.R1 and documents Ex.R2 and R3 have been tendered.

7.                We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

8.                It is worth pointing out at the very outset that the parties are in dispute regarding the fact the complainant had deposited a cheque bearing no.0402490 dated 1.2.2011 with the opposite party no.1 for encashment and crediting the same to Savings Bank Account no.001917. As per the case of the opposite party no.1 the said cheque was sent by it to opposite party no.2 through speed post no. EH269033644In dated 2.2.2011. Opposite party no.2 has submitted that the said envelop sent by opposite party no.1 through post on 2.2.2011 was received by it, but envelop was in open condition and empty. It seemed that the cheque might have slipped out the open envelop in transit.

9.                Thus, from the pleadings of opposite parties it is quite clear that the cheque in envelop was sent by opposite party no.1 to opposite party no.2 and the envelop was delivered by opposite party no.3 to opposite party no.1. The question arises as to where the cheque was lost from the envelop. The opposite party no.2, who has raised the plea that the envelop was open when delivered to it and the cheque might have slipped out of the same, has not furnished any explanation as to why open envelop without containing cheque or any other paper was received from the official of the postal department. The delivery of the open envelop should not have been accepted. The open envelop could very well be checked before accepting delivery whether there was any cheque or letter inside the same. No complaint was made to the Postal Authorities that open envelop without containing any cheque or letter was delivered. Even, if, it is accepted that open envelop was received by opposite party no.2, then also the negligence was on the part of the concerned official of opposite party no.2, who accepted open envelop without containing any cheque or letter. Therefore, opposite party no.2 was responsible for the negligence on the part of its official and as such cannot escape from the liability. Consequently, there was negligence/deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party no.2, the head office of the opposite party no.1. Therefore, opposite parties no.1 and 2 are liable to compensate the complainant for the loss suffered by him.

10.              During the course of arguments complainant even filed an affidavit that the amount of cheque was never received by him, as the person who had issued the cheque in his favour was not traceable, therefore, he could not be in a position to get another cheque issued for the same amount from that person. Therefore, he is entitled to get credited the amount of cheque i.e. Rs.18,300/- in his Savings Bank Account and opposite parties no.1 and 2 are liable to compensate him in this regard

11.              In view of the foregoing discussion, the complaint is accepted and opposite parties no.1 and 2 are directed to credit the amount of Rs.18,300/- in the Savings Bank Account no.001917 of the complainant. We further direct the opposite parties no.1 and 2 to pay Rs.5500/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and for the litigation expenses. This order shall be complied within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 9.8.2016

                                                                                       (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                                         President,

                                                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                      (Anil Sharma)                 Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                                      Member