Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/783/2019

Harsh Bedi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kotak Mohindra Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Anirudh Gupta & Preeti Kalia

28 Jan 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                                    ========

 

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/783/2019
Date of Institution	:	01/08/2019
Date of Decision	:	28/01/2021

 

 

Harsh Bedi S/o Sh. J.S. Bedi, R/o House No.79, Sector 33-A, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

 

V E R S U S

 

1.      Kotak Mahindra Bank, through its Branch Manager, having its Branch at SCO 364, Sector 44-D, Chandigarh-160047.

 

2.      Baljinder Singh, Resident of H.No.23, Phase-VII, SAS Nagar.

 

…… Opposite Parties

QUORUM	:	SURJEET KAUR	PRESIDING MEMBER
		SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                                       

For Complainant	:	Sh. Anirudh Gupta, Counsel for Complainant.
For OP No.1	:	Ex-parte.
For OP No.2	:	None.

 

Per Suresh Kumar Sardana, Member

 

1.         Adumbrated in brief, the facts necessary for the disposal of the instant Consumer Complaint are, the Complainant is a tenant of Opposite Party No.2 on the Ground Floor of SCO 250, Sector 44-C, Chandigarh and is running his business in the name & style of “Diva” Diamond Jewellery there. The Complainant got issued two Demand Drafts bearing No. 443558 and 107085 dated 06.02.2016 and 07.10.2016 respectively from Opposite Party No.1 for an amount of Rs.84,132/- and Rs.42,066/- respectively in order to pay the arrears of rent to Opposite Party No.2 - Sh. Baljinder Singh (Landlord). However, the Opposite Party No.2 failed to get the said Demand Drafts encashed resulting in invalidating the Demand Draft amounting to Rs.84,132/- and the second Demand Draft was somehow lost in transit via speed post. The Complainant requested the Opposite Party No.1 to credit the entire amount of both the Demand Drafts in his Bank Account, but surprisingly till date Opposite Party No.1 has failed to do so. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complainant has filed the instant Consumer Complaint.
2.         Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.
3.         However, nobody appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.1 despite service, therefore, it was proceeded ex-parte on 23.10.2019.
4.         Opposite Party No.2 in his reply, while admitting the basic facts of the case, pleaded that he has not received or encashed any Demand Drafts as mentioned in the Complaint. The issue relates between the Complainant and Opposite Party No.1, wherein Opposite Party No.2 has nothing to do. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on his part, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint.
5.         The complainant has filed a replication, wherein he has reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and repudiated those, contained in the written version of Opposite Party.
6.         Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record, in support of their contentions.
7.         We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant and also gone through the entire record with utmost care and circumspection.
8.         As per the case of the Complainant, Opposite Party No.1 is liable to credit the amount of two demand drafts amounting to Rs.84,132/- and Rs.42,066/- to him as there is no fault on his part at any stage. The Complainant claims, despite his repeated requests to Opposite Party No.1 to credit the entire amount of both the demand drafts in his bank account, Opposite Party No.1 failed to credit the same. It has come on record that on the asking of Opposite Party No.1, Complainant even furnished the Indemnity Bond (Annexure C-3) and subsequently, lodged a DDR dated 18.12.2018 (Annexure C-5) regarding misplaced/lost demand drafts during legal proceedings and were never presented for encashment by the landlord. 
9.         Opposite Party No.2 who is the landlord of the Complainant submitted that the issue relating to loss of demand drafts pertains qua the Complainant and Opposite Party No.1 alone, wherein Opposite Party No.2 has been unnecessarily dragged into.
10.         Significantly, the Opposite Party No.1 did not appear to contest the claim of the complainant and preferred to proceed against ex-parte. This act of the Opposite Party No.1 draws an adverse inference against it. The non-appearance of the Opposite Party No.1 shows that it has nothing to say in its defence against the allegations made by the Complainant. Therefore, the assertions of the Complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted.
11.         In these set of circumstances, it is established beyond all reasonable doubts that the complaint of the Complainant is genuine and the harassment suffered by the Complainant is also writ large.
12.         The Opposite Party No.1 has certainly and definitely indulged into unfair trade practice as it ought to have take remedial steps promptly to redress the grievance of the Complainant, which they failed to do and rather propelled this unwarranted, uncalled for litigation upon the Complainant. Thus, finding a definite deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party No.1, we have no other alternative, but to allow the present complaint against it.
13.         For the reasons recorded above, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Party No.1, and the same is partly allowed. The Opposite Party No.1 is directed:-

[a]      To refund the amount of two demand drafts (Rs.84,132/- and Rs.42,066/-) to the Complainant along with interest @7% p.a. from the date of issue, till realization;

[b]      To pay a compensation of Rs.7,000/- to the Complainant on account of unfair trade practice, deficiency in service and for causing mental and physical harassment to him; 

[c]      To also pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant as litigation expenses. 

                The complaint against Opposite Party No.2 fails and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. 

14.         This order shall be complied with by Opposite Party No.1 within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, Opposite Party No.1 shall be liable to pay interest @9% p.a. instead of 7% p.a. on the amount mentioned at Sr. No.(a) from the date of issue till realization and also to pay interest @12% p.a. on the compensation amount mentioned at Sr. No.(b) from the date of filing the complaint till its realization, besides paying litigation expenses mentioned at Sr. No.(c) above.
15.         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

28^th Jan., 2021                               Sd/-

                        (SURJEET KAUR)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

                                                                    Sd/-

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

MEMBER

 “Dutt”