H. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SHIMLA.

First Appeal No.: 363/2019 Date of Presentation: 02.12.2019 Order reserved on: 18.10.2022 Date of Decision: 03.11.2022 …………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

HDFC Bank through its Branch Manager, Dehra, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh.

… Appellant/opposite party No.3.

Versus

1. Sweety Dehiya W/o Shri Russi Dahiya C/o Sh. Harnam Singh Guleria R/o Ward No.6, Jawalakukhi, District Kangra, HP.

…….Respondent No.1/Complainant

2. State Bank of India through its Manager, Near Bus stand, Jawalamukhi, P.O. & Tehsil Jawalamukhi, District Kangra, H.P.176031.

3. State Bank of India, through its through its Branch Manager Dehra, District Kangra, H.P.

……..Respondents/Opposite parties No.1&2 ……………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Coram Hon’ble Justice Inder Singh Mehta, President Hon’ble Ms.Sunita Sharma, Member.

Hon’ble Mr.R.K.Verma, Member.

1 Whether approved for reporting? Yes For the Appellant: Mr. Digvijay Singh, Advocate. For the Respondent No.1: Mr.Manoj Chauhan, Advocate vice Mr. M.S.Kanwar, Advocate.

For the Respondents No.2&3: Mr.Ashish Jamalta, Advocate.

Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order?

Justice Inder Singh Mehta, President.

O R D E R:

Instant appeal is arising from order dated 02.11.2019 passed by learned District Forum Kangra at Dharamshala, in Consumer Complaint No.27/2019 titled Sweety Dehiya versus State Bank of India & others.

2. Briefly, the case of the complainant is that complainant gave Rs.1.50 lacs in good faith to one C. Sekaran. C.Sekaran in return of the aforesaid amount handed over to complainant cheque dated 21.11.2018 in the sum of Rs.1.50 lacs against his bank account maintained with HDFC bank Delhi. On the same date i.e; 21.11.2018, the complainant presented the cheque in the office of opposite party No.1 (State Bank of India) for encashment and State Bank of India sent the cheque to opposite party No.3 (HDFC Bank) for collection of amount, but the cheque was dishonoured by opposite party No.3 (HDFC Bank) due to insufficient funds. The grievance of the complainant is that instead of sending the aforementioned cheque as well as the necessary memo to her banker, opposite party No.3 (HDFC bank) sent the aforementioned cheque as well as the necessary memo to the drawer C. Sekaran. The complainant was deprived of her legal remedy against the above named drawer from recovering the aforementioned amount. The aforementioned act on the part of the opposite party No.3 (HDFC Bank) amounted to deficiency in service.

3. Opposite party No.1 (State Bank of India) in its reply has not disputed that on 21.11.2018 the complainant had deposited cheque dated 21.11.2018 drawn by one Sh. C.Sekaran against his account maintained with HDFC Bank for encashment. It is pleaded that the said cheuqe was sent to opposite party No.3 (HDFC Bank) for collection of amount. The cheque was dishonoured on the ground of insufficient funds in the account of the drawer as conveyed to it by opposite party No.3 (HDFC Bank). It is further conveyed that on account of inadvertence the original cheque with return memo had been sent to the drawer. The factum of dishonouring of cheque and sending the original cheque alongwith return memo to C. Sekhran was also disclosed to the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering opposite party.

4. The opposite party No.3 (HDFC Bank) in its reply has also not disputed that the cheque in question had been received by it from opposite party No.1 (SBI). It is pleaded that due to insufficient funds in the account of the drawer, the cheque was dishonoured. It is pleaded that due to inadvertence instead of sending back the original cheque along with the return memo to opposite party No.1 (SBI), answering opposite party (HDFC Bank) had sent the same to the drawer C.Sekhran. After realizing the mistake, the answering opposite party (HDFC Bank) had sent registered letters to the drawer C.Sekhran calling upon him to re