The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of the bank's liability in case of cheque loss in transit and the complainant's entitlement to compensation for deficiency in service under the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

ORDER :

MR. RAJINDER KUMAR GOYAL, MEMBER

1. The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant being opposite party in complaint against the order dated 7.9.2018 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ferozepur (in short, ‘District Forum’), whereby the complaint filed by the complainant was allowed and opposite party was directed to pay Rs. 1,90,000 i.e. the cheque amount along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 10.5.2017 till realization. The opposite party was further directed to pay Rs. 6,000 consolidated amount for compensation as well as litigation expenses. It was further directed to comply the said order within a period of one month.

It would be apposite to mention that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as have been arrayed before the District Forum.

2. Brief facts, as averred in the complaint are that the complainant is having his account bearing No. 50100038056006 in the Bank of the opposite party. The complainant presented a cheque bearing No. 690170 dated 10.5.2017 amounting to Rs. 1,90,000, issued by Joginder Lal son of Sh. Ram Ditta, in favour of the complainant. On 12.5.2017, the complainant received a text message that the said cheque was dishonoured by State Bank of India. On next date, the complainant approached the Branch of opposite party for collecting the cheque along with its memo of dishonour. On this, it was informed to the complainant that the same was dispatched at his residential address and he will get it within few days, which the complainant did not receive. The complainant many a times approached the opposite party; but they put off the matter on one pretext or another. It was further averred that the complainant was deprived off opportunity to initiate the criminal proceedings under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against Joginder Lal within the time frame to issue Legal Notice and filing the complaint against the said accused due to deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. On 8.6.2017, a legal notice was served upon opposite party claiming to do the needful for supplying the cheque along with memo of dishonour. But no reply to the legal notice was received by the complainant. It is further averred that the opposite party illegally retained the said cheque along with memo of dishonour having full knowledge about the factum of that procedure for taking action against the person. Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the complainant filed the complaint before the District Forum and sought the following reliefs:

(i) to pay Rs. 1,90,000 i.e. cheque amount along with interest at the rate of 2% per month from the date of presentation of cheque i.e. 10.5.2017;

(ii) to pay Rs. 50,000 as damages and compensation on account of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice;

(iii) to pay Rs. 11,000 as litigation expenses.

3. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared and filed their reply by taking preliminary objections that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable. The complainant has not come to the Court with clean hands and suppressed the material facts. It was further contended that after dishonouring of the cheque, the memo along with dishonoured cheque, duly entered in register on 12.5.2017 was sent to the complainant at his address. The said cheque was sent through courier company namely M/s. Nikhil Agencies situated in Ferozepur Cantt. It was further contended that it was informed by the courier company that bicycle of delivery man Khazan Singh was stolen including the bag containing the courier packet of complainant as well as other couriers. A report to this effect was also given to the police authorities. It was further contended that when the complainant approached the opposite party; the whole incident was explained to him. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. On merits, all the contents, as averred by the complainant in his complaint were denied and further reiterated all the c