The main legal point established in the judgment is the bank's obligation to inform the complainant in writing about the loss of the cheque and to take necessary steps with the drawee bank to enable the complainant to obtain a duplicate cheque, as well as the legal principle that a cheque is to be honored when presented, despite discrepancies in the amount in words and figures.

ORDER :

Harcharan Singh Guram, Member

This appeal has been filed by the appellant on behalf of OP against the order dated 15.01.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (in short, "the District Forum"), Kapurthala, vide which complaint of the respondent/complainant was allowed with a direction to the OP to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs.5,000/- as litigation costs within a period of 30 days failing which the total amount of Rs.15,000/- was ordered to carry interest @ 9% p.a from the date of receipt of the information as to loss of cheque as noted under letter dated 20.7.2012 till date of realization of said amount by the complainant.

2. Brief facts of the case are that Nirmal Singh, complainant was having a saving bank account No.52922 with the bank of OP. On 02.08.2011, he deposited a cheque bearing no.187553 dated 17.06.2011 amounting to Rs.95,000 drawn on Corporation Bank Branch, Kapurthala issued by one Amarjit Singh S/o Sharam Singh resident of Ajit Nagar, Kapurthala with OP-Bank. The OP sent this cheque for encashment to the drawee bank namely Corporation Bank branch, Kapurthala. However, the amount of the cheque was not credited in the complainant's account. Complainant made several visits to OP to know about the fate of the cheque but failed to get any fruitful result. He also wrote a letter dated 29.03.2012 to the manager of the OP in this respect, but of no use. It was pleaded that he had got issued the said cheque from Amarjit Singh in lieu of the amount which the latter had taken from him for depositing in a company named Zee Start Multi Club Tours Pvt. Ltd, which was found to be bogus one and when he lodged complaint against said Amarjit Singh in police station, he admitted his liability and had issued cheque in question, in the name of complainant. It is further alleged that in spite of passing more than one year, OP had failed to credit the amount of the cheque in his account. Rather the officials of OP told complainant that said cheque had lost in transit. This act of the OP caused great loss to the complainant, as Amarjit Singh had now flatly refused to issue any further cheque to him. It was clear-cut case of deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and negligence on the part of OP, for which complainant was not only entitled to get amount of cheque in question, but also to the damages to the tune of Rs.50,000/- for mental agony and harassment besides costs of litigation.

3. Upon notice, OP raising certain preliminary objections that complaint was not maintainable ; that complainant was not having locus standi/cause of action to file the complaint against OP and that complainant was estopped by his own act and conduct, omission and commission, to file the present complaint. On merits, plea taken up by the OP is that complainant was informed about the fact that cheque was not going to be honoured for its defect as the cheque amount mentioned in figures and words was different. In figures, it was mentioned as Rs.9,50,000/-, whereas in words, it was mentioned as ninety five thousand only. Therefore, OP advised him to get rectified the said mistake. But complainant pressurized the officials of the OP bank to entertain the same at his own risk and liability. It was further pleaded and that cheque, in question, along with other cheques, was sent for collection to drawee bank through M/s Akash Ganga Couriers Ltd., vide consignment No.1754 through Sanjeev Enterprises, but later on it transpired that packet containing the said cheque along with other cheques, was lost/misplaced by the courier in transit and the said courier lodged DDR No.43 dated 23.08.2011 with the police station. OP further submitted that as per clause no.3 of conditions of pay-in-slip, neither the bank nor agent of the bank would be responsible for any loss or placement of the cheque or for any delay in collection, transmission. The said pay-inslip was duly acknowledged