Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/20/46

M/s Tag Motors Limited - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kotak Mohindra Bank Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Gagandeep Singh Adv.

16 Aug 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No:46 dated 29.01.2020.                                                 Date of decision: 16.08.2022.

 

M/s. Tag Motors Ltd., 269-D, Phase-8, Focal Point, Ludhiana through its Director Sh. Ajmer Singh.                                                                                                                                                                   ..…Complainant 

•  

 

1. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., Block-XV-399 and 399/1, Basement, Ground and First Floor, Moongphali Mandi, Gill Road, Ludhiana-141003 through its Branch Manager
2. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., Gurdev Nagar Branch, Ludhiana through its Branch Manager.
3. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., CST Road, Kolivery Village, Vidhya Nagari, Kalina, Santacruz East, Mumbai-400098, through its Branch Manager/authorized signatory.                                                                                                                                              …..Opposite parties 

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. G.S. Lamba, Advocate.

For OPs                          :         Sh. Ritesh Mohindra, Advocate.

 

 

 

 

 

ORDER

PER K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

1.                In brief, the case of the complainant is that the complainant is a company which has authorized Sh. Ajmer Singh vide resolution dated 05.12.2019 to file the present complaint. It is further alleged that the complainant company is running the business of auto parts. The complainant company has been maintaining a bank account with OP2 bank. On 23.08.2019, the complainant presented with OP1 the cheque bearing No.403066 dated 18.07.2019 for Rs.3,84,843/- drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, Shivalik Nagar branch, Haridwar which was issued by M/s. Singhaal Traders in favour of the complainant company. However, the said cheque was dishonoured on the ground ‘Stopped by drawer’. After dishonouring of the cheque, the complainant went to OP1 and requested the officials to return the original cheque as he intended to file a case against M/s. Singhaal Traders but the officials told the complainant that they cannot hand over the cheque to the complainant and they would send the same to him through speed post. However, even after the lapse of one month, the cheque was not received by the complainant even though the complainant visited OP1 branch many times. Due to non-handing over of the cheque by the bank, the complainant could not recover the amount of the cheque from the issuing firm. This amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. A legal notice dated 09.12.2019 was served upon the OPs through Sh. Gagandeep Singh Lamba, Advocate but despite that no action was taken. Hence the complaint whereby it has been requested that the Ops be directed to pay Rs.3,84,843/- to the complainant along with interest @18% per annum and further the OPs be made to pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. 

2.                The complaint has been resisted by the OPs. In the written statement filed on behalf of the OPs, it has been, inter alia, pleaded that the complaint is liable to be dismissed as no cause of action has arisen to the complainant to file the complaint against the OPs. In fact, it was a case of negligence on the part of the courier company as the cheque in question was lost in transit. Moreover, the OPs could only be held liable in case the memo or the cheque in question was misplaced at the branch itself. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the OPs as the OPs discharged their liability by returning the original dishonoured cheque and memo vide DTDC Courier  No.Z14920102 on 23.08.2019. The complainant has intentionally not impleaded the courier company as a party in this case. The rest of the allegations made in the complaint have been denied as wrong and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has also been made.

3.                In evidence, the complainant did not formally tender any evidence. However, at the time of filing of the complaint, the complainant submitted his affidavit Ex. CA and documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C6.

4.                On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs tendered affidavit Ex. RW1/A Sh. Guurav Jain, Branch Manager of the OPs along with documents Ex. R1 to Ex. R5 and closed the evidence.

5.                We have heard the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 

6.                In this case, the grievance of the complainant is that on 27.08.2019, it presented a cheque bearing No.403066 dated 18.07.2019 for Rs.3,84,843/- drawn on Indian Overseas Bank issued in its favour by M/s. Singhaal Traders. The cheque was dishonoured as the payment was stopped by drawer. The cheque was not returned to the complainant along with memo mentioning the reasons of dishonour and due to this the complainant could not initiate necessary proceedings against the drawer of the cheque i.e. M/s.Singhaal Traders. It has also been claimed by the complainant that it resulted in a loss of Rs.3,84,843/- which the complainant company could not recover from the drawer of the cheque.

7.                Having thoughtfully considered the whole matter, we are of the considered view that merely because the cheque was not returned to the complainant, it cannot be said that the complainant lost the right to recover the amount of the cheque from M/s. Singhaal Traders. The complainant had come to know that the cheque had been dishonoured. If the original cheque or the dishonour memo was not sent to the complainant, it could still file a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act  against the drawer of the cheque and could summon the record from the OP Bank to prove the factum of dishonour of the cheque. Moreover, the complainant has not led any evidence with regard to the fact that the amount of the cheque was still outstanding against M/s.Singhaal Traders or that no civil or criminal proceedings were initiated. In this regard, the complainant has not even placed on record its account books to prove that the amount was still due towards the drawer of the cheque. The case set up by the OP bank is that as per the Reserve Bank of India guidelines, the cheque along with memo was sent to the complainant through courier but the same was lost by the courier company during transit. In this regard, the counsel for the OPs has relied upon Ex. R4 vide which the courier company informed the OP Bank that the post containing the cheque and dishonouring the memo was lost in transit.  It is not the case of the OPs that the letter Ex. R4 or its copy was sent to the complainant at any point of time. The complainant is not supposed to implead the courier company as party in this case as it has no privity of contract with the said company. Even if the cheque was lost due to some fault on the part of the courier company, it cannot be sad that the OPs stood absolved of all their liabilities. The courier company is nothing but an agent of the OPs who are supposed to hire the best quality couriers in order to render efficient services to its clients. Therefore, in the given circumstances, we are of the considered view that it would be just and proper if the OPs are made to pay Rs.10,000/- for causing inconvenience to the complainant and for deficiency of service on their parts.      

8.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed with direction to the OPs to pay a composite cost and compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

9.                Due to rush of work and spread of COVID-19, the case could not be decided within statutory period.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:16.08.2022.

Gobind Ram.

M/s. Tag Motors Vs Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.                      CC/20/46   

Present:       Sh. G.S. Lamba, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh. Ritesh Mohindra, Advocate for the OPs.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint is partly allowed with direction to the OPs to pay a composite cost and compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:16.08.2022.

Gobind Ram.