w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



UCO Bank, Kundli, G.T. Karnal Road, District Sonipat, Haryana, through its Senior v/s Gulshan Rai Bathla, Prop. Samta Automobiles, near General Hospital & Others

    First Appeal No. 1002 of 2015

    Decided On, 19 May 2016

    At, Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Panchkula

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH
    By, RESIDENT & THE HONOURABLE MR. B.M. BEDI
    By, JUDICIAL MEMBER

    For the Appellant: Anil Sharma, Advocate assisted by Gopal Arora,Sr. Manager Hari Ram, Sr. Manager, Sandeep Dahiya, Asstt. Manager. For the Respondents: R1, Ashok Kaushik, R2, Lilu Ram, R3, Sunil Narang, Advocates.



Judgment Text

B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member

1. This appeal has been preferred by Opposite Party No.1-UCO Bank, against the order dated October 19th, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonipat (for short ‘the District Forum’) in Complaint No.106 of 2013.

2. Gulshan Rai-complainant/respondent No.1, maintained account with UCO Bank, Kundli-Opposite Party No.1 (appellant herein). He deposited a cheque bearing No.306352 dated 24.11.2008 of Rs.2.00 lacs with the opposite party No.1. The said cheque was issued in his favour by one Hari Om Automobile Ganaur from his account maintained with The Sonipat Urban Cooperative Bank Limited-Opposite Party No.2. The amount being not credited in his account, the complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

3. The opposite party No.1 in its reply pleaded that the cheque was returned to the complainant on 26.11.2008. The complainant did not disclose the name of the bank where the cheque was deposited on 27.11.2008. The opposite party No.2-Sonepat Urban Cooperative Bank Limited, stated that the amount of Rs.2.00 lacs was paid in clearing house on 27.11.2008. However, it was not mentioned that in which bank the amount was credited.4. The opposite party No.2 in its reply pleaded that cheque in question was issued by Hari Om Automobiles in favour of Samta Automobiles on 24.11.2008. As per statement of account of M/s Hari Om Automobiles, the amount of Rs.2.00 lacs was paid in clearing house on 27.11.2008 and the payment was made to the clearing house by the opposite party No.2 on the same day. Thus, denying any kind of deficiency in service, it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

5. HDFC Bank Clearing House-Opposite Party No.3/respondent, in its reply pleaded that on 03.12.2008 the opposite party No.1 had raised claims through R.B.I. Return clearing Zone-2 and their claims were duly honoured by the opposite party No.3 on 04.10.2008.

6. UCO Bank Clearing House-opposite party No.4 did not contest the complaint and was proceeded exparte.

7. After evaluating the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum vide impugned order accepted complaint. The operative part of the order is reproduced as under:-

'After hearing learned counsel for both the parties at length and after going through the entire relevant records available on the case file very carefully, we have come to the conclusion that it is the respondent No.1 who is deficient in his services. The respondent No.2 made the payment to clearing house and payment has been received by transfer in clearing house against the cheque in question and thereafter, the matter remained between the clearing house and the respondent No.1. So, non-credit of the amount of Rs.2 lacs in the account of the complainant amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondent No.1 and 4. Thus, we hereby direct the respondent No.1 and 4 to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs20,000/- (Rs.twenty thousands) for rendering deficient services, harassment and under the head of litigation expenses. Further the respondent No.1 and 4 are directed to credit the amount of Rs.2 lacs in the account of the complainants and also to pay interest at the saving rate w.e.f. 27.11.2008 till realization.'

With these observations, findings and direction, the present complaint stands allowed qua respondent No.1 and 4 since we find no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent No.2 & 3.'

8. Learned counsel for the appellant-UCO Bank has placed on the file a letter wherein the opposite party No.3-HDFC Bank has pointed out that the proceeds have been lying with Reserve Bank of India return clearing Zone-2 and it could be claimed from them. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/HDFC bank has placed on the file statement that amount was still lying with RBI.

9. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the amount of cheque was debited in the account of drawer of the cheque and was not credited in the account of the complainant. The complainant has suffered for nearly eight years due to non-credit of the amount in his account. Inter se dispute between the appellant bank and the respondent/HDFC Bank has made the complainant to suffer. In any case, the amount lying with RBI can only be claimed by either UCO Bank or by HDFC Bank. The complainant has no role to play. It is the appellant bank, who despite letter dated 27.11.2008 (Annexure R-5) did not take any step to lodge the claim with RBI or HDFC to get the amount.

10. Taking into consideration the de-valuation of money and the mental harassment etcetera, though the complainant has not preferred any appeal for enhancement of compens

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

ation or interest, it is a case where the appeal deserves to be dismissed with heavy cost. Hence, it is dismissed with cost of Rs.25,000/-. However, the appellant, if so advised, may take steps to claim the amount from wherever it is lying, whether with RBI or HDFC Bank. 11. The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.
O R