H D F C BANK LIMITED Vs. SUBHASH CHAND SON OF SALI RAM AND ORS
LAWS(HPCDRC)-2010-9-16
HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on September 06,2010

H D F C Bank Limited Appellant
VERSUS
Subhash Chand Son Of Sali Ram And Ors Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) BY this order we propose to dispose of both these appeals, as these have arisen out of order passed by District Forum Kangra, Camp at Jawali, in Consumer Complaint No. 367/2007, decided on 27.04.2010.
(2.) ADMITTED facts giving rise to both these appeals are that as per stand of Shri Subhash Chand son of Shri Sali Ram, hereinafter to be referred to as the "complainant", was issued a cheque in the sum of Rs. 50,000/ - by one Shri Mahesh Lokhande. This cheque was deposited by him with Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Limited Lohara at Fatehpur (Bank and its branch), hereinafter to be referred to as the "OPs No. 1 and 2", respectively. According to these OPs, they had lien on agency arrangement for collecting of cheques drawn on locations other than Himachal Pradesh and under this arrangement, they had sent this cheque of Rs. 50,000/ - to Manager, HDFC Bank Limited at Chandigarh. This bank is also sued through its Head Office. Both these are hereinafter to be referred as "OPs No. 3 and 4", respectively.
(3.) IT was not disputed inter -se both the sets of OPs at the time of hearing, that OPs No. 1 and 2 had sent the cheque in question for collection through OPs No. 3 and 4 at its Chandigarh Office for collection. When this cheque in process of being returned by OPs No. 3 and 4 through courier service, it was lost in transit by said courier. This cheque was never presented to the bank concerned as made out from Annexure C -4, the endorsement made by Uran Branch of State Bank of India, upon whom the cheque was drawn favouring the complainant. Before filing the complaint, the complainant got legal notice issued, copy whereof is Annexure C -1. It was duly replied to by OP No. 4 vide Annexure C -3 on 27.09.2007. Annexure C -5 is the original counterfoil of pay -in -slip, whereby the amount was deposited with OP No. 2 by the complainant. All these facts were not disputed during hearing of this appeal.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.