POST MASTER, THALTEJ ROAD POST OFFICE vs PATEL HASMUKHBHAI GOVINDBHAI

THIS appeal arises from the order dated 3.12.1998 rendered by the learned City Consumer Disputed Redressal Forum, Ahmedabad City in Complaint No. 596/95.

IT was the complainant''s case before the learned Forum that in his Savings. Bank Account No. 2972799 with the opponent No. 1 Post Office he deposited a cheque for Rs. 85,000/- on 19.1.1995 issued by HDFC by way of amount of loan to purchase a flat. The opponents assured the complainat about the cheque being cleared and credited to his account on or before 31.11995. On such assurance, the complainant issued cheque to M/s. Sentur Builders on 24.1.1995 in order to get possession of the premises to be purchased by the complainant from the said builders. However, on account of negligence on the part of the opponent the cheque was not cleared as the amount of aforesaid cheque of Rs. 85,000/- was not credited to his account. The complainant invited the risk of criminal proceedings as his cheque was dishonoured. He had to enter into quarrel with the builder and to express apology. He had to entreat the builders although he was not at fault. The complainant had to issue another cheque on 30.1.1995 for the said amount in favour of the builders. Even that cheque bounced back as the complainant''s cheque was not cleared and credited to his savings bank account by the time. The builders, therefore, had given a threat to the complainant of criminal proceedings for cheating. Besides, the builder also delayed handing over the possession of the premises to the complainant who was to get the possession on 31.1.1995. He had, therefore, to continue to occupy rented premises for which he had to pay rent as particularised in the complaint. Besides, he was also liable to pay interest to the HDFC. At last, the cheque was credited in the complainant''s savings bank account on 4.2.1995 with the result that the cheque thereafter issued in favour of the builder by the complainant was honoured on 8.2.1995. The complainant had to suffer a great deal of harassment and inconvenience on account of negligence on the part of the opponents in the matter of clearance of his cheque of Rs. 85,000/- as aforesaid. He, therefore, claimed Rs. 10,495 by way of damages towards loss of interest, mental pain and agony etc. The opponents [appellants herein] resisted the complaint on the ground that the General Post Office is the only clearing agent for all the post offices and the cheques are required to be forwarded to it for clearance. The complainant''s cheque in question was accordingly forwarded but was returned on 23.1.1995 as it was not accompanised with the pay-in-slip. Such pay-in-slip was not sent along with the cheque due to indavertance. The cheque was accordingly again forwarded by the opponent no. 1 post office with pay-in-slip on 27.1.1995 and it was accordingly sent for clearance by Navrangpura Head Post Office through the aforesaid channel. The cheque was accordingly cleared on 30.1.1995. The opponents did not know that the complainant issued a cheque in favour of the builders in payment of the price for the premises he was to purchase. Besides, the opponents are not charging any price or taking any consideration in lieu of the services rendered by the opponents for the clearance of the local cheques. The complaint was accordingly sought to be dismissed.

Upon hearing the matter and consideration of the material placed before it, the learned City Forum passed the impugned order which reads as under : "The complaint is hereby allowed. The opponents are jointly and severally directed to pay to the complainant the sum of Rs. 3,500.00 with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from 1.3.1995 till payment and to pay Rs. 500.00 as costs. The opponent to comply within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order."

IN this appeal challenge to the aforesaid order has been on following grounds as per the submissions made by Mr. S.C. Shah, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants (opponents in the complaint proceedings). It has been first submitted that the learned Forum has erred in factually holding that the opponents were guilty of deficiency in service in not getting the clearance of cheque of Rs. 85,000/- issued by HDFC in favour of the complainant. It was submitted that even on the say of the complainant he could have waited upto 31.1.1995 before issuing counter cheque in favour of the builders. He unnecessarily hurried up in issuing the cheque on 24.1.1995. Prima facie there appears to be substance in the argument of Mr. Shah insofar as the first issuance of cheque, namely issuance of cheque on 24.1.1985 by the complainant is concerned. The complainant, while issuing the cheque dated 24.1.1995 could have informed the builders to deposit it on or after 30.1.1995. However, when the complainant issued another cheque dated 30.1.1995 for Rs. 85,000/- in favour of the builders, there was no reason for the said cheque having not been cleared since even in the ordinary course of banking practice undertaken by the post offices the complainant''s cheque could have been cleared much before 30.1.1995 so that there could not have been any occasion for dishonour of the second counter cheque dated 30.1.1995. It is in this respect that even on the say of the opponents there clearly appears to be deficiency in service. The opponents have in terms admitted that through inadvertance pay-in-slip was not sent along with the complainant''s cheque for clearance to the Head Post Office through Navrangpura Post Office. It is a different matter that the Authorities of the said post office being the opponents in the complaint may take appropriate action against the erring personnel. However, the dishonour of the second cheque dated 30.1.1995 issued by the complainant appears to be the direct consequence of negligence in performance of banking service by die opponents. Therefore, the submissions made in that respect do not merit acceptance even in this appeal.

THE second ground on which challenge to the impugned order is sought to be supported is with regard to. whether the service of clearance of local cheques rendered by the opponents is free of charge and, therefore, it does not fall within the ambit of protection made available under the Act to the consumers. It is not in dispute that one of the services which the post offices offer to the consumers is the banking service. Facility of Savings Bank Account is one specie of that service. When the opponents say that they offer clearance of such services free of charge that necessarily implies that they charge for clearance of outstation cheques or other such services pertaining to operation of Savings Bank Account. In that view of the matter, the argument that the present case would not fall within the ambit of Act cannot be accepted. That will take us to the question of amount of damages awarded by the learned Forum. It has allowed Rs. 1,500/- by way of loss on account of rent paid by the complainant for along with Rs. 1,000/- by way of loss of interest required to be paid by the complainant to HDFC, Rs. 1,000/ - by way of compensation for mental pain and agony. Insofar as loss of interest is concerned, we have heard the complainant who is present before us. It is an admitted fact that irrespective of whether the cheque was cleared or not, complainant was liable to pay interest to HDFC no sooner loan was sanctioned. Therefore, even if the cheque issued by HDFC was issued at a later point of time or cleared at a later point of time, liability to pay interest to the HDFC by the complainant ensued no sooner the loan was sanctioned. In that view of the matter, as a matter of fact, there was no loss of interest insofar as the complainant was concerned on account of delay of around 10 to 12 days in clearance of his cheque at the hands of the opponents. However, so far as payment of rent is concerned, it is plain to say that the complainant might not have been required to pay rent for the month of February had the cheque got its clearance in the month of January as per the particulars set out in this order. Therefore, grant of damages on this count at the hands of the learned Forum cannot be faulted. Compensation in the sum of Rs. 1,000/- for mental pain and agony sounds reasonable on the face of it. Insofar as interest is concerned, direction to pay the interest at the rate of 18% p.a. deserve to be modified as under. We, therefore, partly allow this appeal and pass following order. The impugned order dated 3.12.1998 rendered by the City consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ahmedabad in Complaint No. 596/95 is modified and instead of direction to the opponents to pay to the complainant Rs. 3,500/-, there shall be direction to the opponent to pay to the complainant Rs. 2,500/- with running interest @ 12% p.a. from 1.3.1995 till payment. Direction with regard to cost is maintained. However, there shall be no order as to costs so far as the appeal is concerned. The same is accordingly partly allowed.

OUT of the amount deposited by the opponents, the complainant shall be paid the amount payable as per the aforesaid order and the opponent shall be paid back the balance amount after due verification of the amount alleged to have been deposited. The parties will give their joint working to the office for the purpose of withdrawal. Appeal partly allowed.