Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 08.
Instituted on : 04.01.2008.
Decided on : 31.07.2009.
Ved Parkash s/o Sh. Jagan Nath resident of H.No.35/80, IVth Floor Sector No.20, Panchkula(Haryana).
………..Complainant.
Vs.
1. Manager of ICICI Bank, Ashoka Complex, Rohtak.
2. Manager, UTI Bank now changed to Axis Bank, Ashoka Complex, Rohtak.
3. M/s Meera Travels through its Proprietor Sh. Jagdish Kumar, Civil Road, Near Chhotu Ram Chowk, Rohtak.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAITN U/S 12 OF CONCUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH. JOGINDER SINGH JAKHAR, PRESIDENT.
SMT. MEENA KUMARI, MEMBER.
SH. VIRENDRA KUMAR JAIN, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.S.P.Sehri, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.N.K.Singhal, Advocate for the opposite party no.1.
Sh.Vinod Pahwa Advocate for the opposite party no.3.
Opposite party no.2 given up.
ORDER
JOGINDER SINGH JAKHAR, PRESIDENT:
According to the complainant he had advanced a sum of Rs.49500/- to Sh. Jagdish Kumar/respondent no.3, Proprietor of Meera Travels in the year 2006. The opposite party no.3 to repay the loan issued cheque no.CAO036771 amounting to Rs.49500/- from its account no.204010200000170 in favour of the complainant on 20.3.2007 for crediting to his account no.004301025074(HUF) to ICICI Bank, Panchkula Haryana respondent no.2. The UTI Bank/opposite party No.1 debited the said amount of Rs.49500/- from the account of opposite party no.3 on 22.3.07 but did not credit the said amount in the account of consumer/holder of account no.004301025074 HUF. It is further submitted that on intimation of opposite party no.3 the complainant issued cheque no.456313 amounting to Rs.20000/- in favour of Prudential Insurance dated 23.3.07 but the same was dishonored as there was no balance to satisfy the said amount in the account of complainant. That due to deficiency in service on the part of opposite party, complainant suffered in reputation and loss of interest @ 18% on Rs.49500/- from 22.3.07. The alleged cheque issued by the opposite party no.3 was neither returned to opposite party no.3 nor any intimation was given to the applicant. The act of opposite party is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint with prayer to direct the opposite parties to pay damages of Rs.100000/- for loss of reputation including interest @ 18% on Rs.49500/- from 22.3.07 to the date of payment in favour of the complainant with costs.
After notice opposite party no.2 was given up. Opposite party no.1 & 3 appeared and filed their separate written reply. Opposite party no.1 in its reply has submitted that a cheque bearing no.36771 was deposited with the ICII bank, Panchkula to transfer the amount of the cheque in account no.004301025074(HUF). The said cheque was cleared by the opposite party no.1 but the amount of the cheque was not credited in the bank account mentioned on the deposit slip since the cheque was bearing name of Ved Parkash only, whereas the account number was in the name of Ved Parkash HUF. It is further submitted that the complainant never approached the opposite party no.1 for the redressal of his grievances. Had he approached the opposite party no.1 earlier, the matter would have been sorted by now. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied. Opposite party no.1 prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
Opposite party no.3 in its reply has submitted that it is admitted that the opposite party no.1 debited the amount of Rs.49500/- from the account of opposite party no.3 but the crediting of amount in the account of complainant is not concerned with the answering opposite party. It is further submitted that answering opposite party has no objection in accepting the prayer of the complainant.
Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.
Complainant in his evidence tendered affidavit Ex.P1, documents Ex.P2 to Ex.P4 and closed his evidence.
Ld. Counsel for the opposite party no.1 in his evidence tendered affidavit Ex.R1, documents Ex.R2 to Ex.R3 and closed his evidence.
Ld. Counsel for the opposite party no.3 in his evidence tendered affidavit Ex.R2/1 and closed his evidence.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the evidence and other material aspect of the case very carefully.
After going through the file and hearing the parties we have observed that the cheque bearing no.36771 Ex.R3 dated 19.03.07 amounting to Rs.49500/- was issued in the name of Ved Parkash and as per pay in slip Ex.R2, the same was deposited on dated 20.03.07 in the account no.004301025074 in the name of Ved Parkash. The contention of the opposite party no.1 is that the said cheque was cleared by the opposite party no.1 but the amount of the cheque was not credited in the bank account mentioned on the deposit slip since the cheque was bearing name of Ved Parkash only, whereas the account number was in the name of Ved Parkash HUF, hence the money was transferred into the suspense account on the apprehension that as and when the holder of the bank approaches the bank the same would be deposited in his account after taking an undertaking from the complainant.
After going through the file and hearing the parties we are of the considered view that it is proved on file that the cheque amounting to Rs.49500/- was not deposited in the account of complainant by the opposite party no.1 for want of correct name. But when the account number was correct, the opposite party no.1 should have intimated to the accountholder/complainant to confirm the genuineness of the same but the same was not done. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party no.1 and the complainant is entitled for the relief.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case we have come to the conclusion that complaint is tenable. Accordingly we hereby allow the complaint with direction to the opposite party No.1 to pay the interest @ 9% on Rs.49500/- w.e.f. 20.03.2007 till the date of deposit of the alleged amount into the account of complainant and Rs.1500/-(One thousand five hundred only) as litigation expenses to the complainant maximum within one month from the date of decision.
Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.
File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open court:
31.07.2009.
………………………….
Joginder Singh Jakhar.
…………………………
Meena Kumari, Member.
…………………………
Virendra Kumar Jain, Member.
vs