Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/131/2020

Patrick Daniel - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Shiv Pratap S. Mann

03 Aug 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/131/2020
Date of Institution	:	12/03/2020
Date of Decision	:	03/08/2023

 

Patrick Daniel, H.No.1375, Silver Tone City, Sector 48-B, Chandigarh.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

ICICI Bank through Neharika Gupta (Manager), SCO 82, Sector 46-C, Chandigarh.

… Opposite Party

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                

ARGUED BY	:	None for Complainant.
	:	Sh.Kartik, Vice Counsel for Sh.Sandeep Suri, Counsel for OP(s).

 

Per Suresh Kumar Sardana, Member

1.      Averments are that the complainant is an account holder with OP-Bank. The complainant was issued a cheque drawn on HDFC bank dated 13.12.2018 for Rs.22035/-. The cheque was presented to the OP on 11.03.2019 (wrongly mentioned as 11.3.2018) within the validity period (Annexure C-1). On 12.03.2019, the complainant received a bank memo stating that the cheque had not been credited as it become “outdated” (Annexure C-2). Thereafter, a complaint was duly lodged with the bank staff which was processed and the bank conveyed by email that the cheque in question was presented on 12.03.2019 and became “stale” as it was dated 13.12.2018 (Annexure C-3). The complainant sent a legal notice to the OP, but no response was received. As per RBI notification dated 4.11.2011, the validity of cheques from 1.4.2012 will be 3 months. The cheque in question was to become invalid on 13.3.2019 and not 11.3.2019. Hence is the present consumer complaint.
2.     OP contested the consumer complaint filed its written reply and stated that the complainant presented a cheque drawn on HDFC bank dated 13.12.2018 for Rs.22035/- on 3 occasions. Instrument received at regional processing centre (RPC) three time on 19.12.2018, 30.01.2019 and 12.03.2020. Complainant has deposited the instrument in clearing on 19.12.2018 lodged in clearing date 20.12.2015 same has been returned with reason “payment stopped by drawer”. Again, instrument has been deposited for clearing 30.1.2019 and returned with same reason on dated 31.01.2019 and delivered to customer address on dated 01.02.2019. Again the bank received same instrument for clearing on 12.03.2019 and instrument was returned in before lodgment due to instrument has “outdated” and returned to customer on same day. On these lines, the case is sought to be defended by OP.
3.     Rejoinder on behalf of complainant not filed despite of the opportunity given. Hence, opportunity to file rejoinder was closed vide order dated 23.01.2023 by order of this Commission.
4.     Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5.     We have heard the learned counsel for the OP and gone through the record of the case.
6.     On perusal of the complaint, it is gathered that main grievance of the complainant is that inspite of presenting the cheque to the OP within 3 months of issue date, the amount of the same was not credited and the cheque became stale, due to which the complainant suffered a loss of an amount of Rs.22035/-. It is observed from records that the same cheque was presented by the complainant to the OP on 19.12.2018, 30.01.2019 and 12.03.2020. On earlier two occasions the instrument was returned with reason “payment stop by drawer”, so we are of the view that there was no further reason on the part of complainant to again deposit the instrument/cheque on the last date of clearance, when on earlier two occasions the payment was stopped by drawer. It should have been appropriate on the part of complainant to take action under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
7.     We cannot hold the OP deficient in any manner as the cheque has been sent uncleared by the drawee bank, as the cheque presented to the drawee bank on 13.03.2019, which will be stale for the drawee bank. Moreover, the complainant has not made drawee bank as a necessary party, who returned the cheque, which is a necessary party to our mind.
8.     In view of the above discussion, the complainant has not been able to prove his case.  Accordingly, the consumer complaint, being meritless, is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
9.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

			Sd/-
03/08/2023			[Pawanjit Singh]
Ls			President
			Sd/-
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana]
			Member