1. The facts discerning and deciphering this case lodged u/s 25/28 of PCPA 2005, in nutshell, are as under: The claimant is the account holder of the Allied Bank Ltd Satiana Road Branch Faisalabad, under account No.3828-5. As the claimant had to recover an amount of Rs.600000/- from one, Muhammad Ahmad S/O Bashir Ahmad resident of Mohallah Fateh Abad Gharbi Faisalabad, in some transaction, therefore, the said Muhammad Ahmad handed over cheque No.137951 dated 31.07.2007, under his account No.5311-2 Muslim Commercial Bank Satiana Road Branch Faisalabad, to the claimant of the same denomination which was deposited by the claimant in the said bank in his above said account vide receipt No.405728. A few days before lodging this claim, the claimant visited the Branch Manager Allied Bank Ltd Satiana Road Branch Faisalabad, for drawing some amount from the Bank for his personal use when it was disclosed to his astonishment that the above said amount of Rs.600000/- had not been credited in his account. The claimant got the statement of account of Muhammad Ahmad account holder from Muslim Commercial Bank Satiana Road Branch Faisalabad, which disclosed that the said amount had not been transferred from the account of Muhammad Ahmad to the above said account of claimant at Allied Bank Ltd, Satiana Road Branch Faisalabad. Under such circumstances, the claimant has prayed for recovery of an amount of Rs.600000/- from the defendants alongwith compensation.
2. The defendants have vehemently opposed the above said claim by filing their statement of defence, interalia, on the grounds that the claimant dose not fall within the definition of the "consumer", that the alleged receipt is not genuine being fake false and forged that, as such, the claim is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
3. As the matter needed evidence in view of intricate points of law and facts, therefore, the parties were directed to produce their evidence through their respective affidavits and documents in support of their respective versions, if so desired. In this regard, the claimant Haji Muhammad Sadiq has appeared in the witness box as PW-1, through his affidavit as EX-PW1/1, whereas he has produced Muhammad Afzal and Majid Bashir as PW2 and PW3, respectively, through his affidavits as EX-PW2/1 and EX-PW3/1. In his documentary evidence, the claimant has also tendered receipt dated 31.07.2007, as Mark "A", statement of account of Muhammad Ahmad as Mark "B", statement of account Haji Muhammad Sadiq as Mark "C". In rebuttal, Javaid Sharif Manager Allied Bank Ltd, Satiana Road Branch Faisalabad, got recorded his statement as DW1, through his affidavit as EX- DW1/1. In their documentary evidence the defendants have adduced the letter dated 17.10.2008, as Mark "A", letter date 07.10.2008, as Mark "B", letter dated 23.01.2008, as Mark "C" letter dated 27.10.2007, No.8783 as Mark "D", copy of FIR dated 29.09.2007, as Mark "E". After conclusion of evidence of the parties, Javaid Sharif Manager Allied Bank Ltd, Satiana Road Branch Faisalabad, was again called as court witness as CW1, who then submitted the copy of deposit slip as EX- CW1/1/A, cheque register as EX-CW1/1/B, copy of statement account of Yaseen Traders as EXCW1/1/C. Muhammad Ahmad S/O Muhammad Bashir was there after also summoned as court witness for clarification who appeared as CW2, and his statement was got recorded through his affidavit EXCW2/1. The proprietor of Yaseen Traders was also summoned but it was reported by messenger of this court that his given address was wrong, hence, Haji Muhammad Sadiq the claimant has submitted affidavit that there is no person by name and style of Yaseen Traders.
4. After exhausting all available evidence from all corners, I have heard learned counsel for the parties, at length and have perused the record carefully and inestimably.
5. In order to resolve the controversy, it would be in the interest of justice and in the fitness of things critically to appraise evidence of the parties as under in order to reach a safe conclusion:
6. It so transpires from the statement of Haji Muhammad Sadiq, the claimant, that Muhammad Ahmad S/O Bashir Ahmad handed over to him disputed cheque No.137951 dated 31.07.2007, of the denomination of the Rs.600000/- under his account No.5311-2 Muslim Commercial Bank Satiana Road Branch Faisalabad, which the claimant deposited under his account No.405728 in the Bank of the defendants on the same date, but that such amount was not credited to the claimant's account. He was subjected to pithy cross-examination but nothing could be elicited from him that might have gone against his stand in the claim. Muhammad Afzal and Majid Bashir PW's have concurrently stated through their affidavits that the claimant deposited the above said cheque in the defendant's Bank which corroborated the statement of the claimant in toto, Mark "A", is the receipt issued by the defendant's Bank showing that the claimant deposited the cheque of the above said denomination in the defendant's Bank on 31.07.2007, Mark "B", is the Bank statement showing clearance of the disputed cheque in the defendant's Bank. In rebuttal, Javaid Sharif Manager Allied Bank Ltd, Satiana Road Branch Faisalabad, DW1 took a fresh ground, not delineated in the written statement, that the claimant was in league with the then Bank Manager Shoukat Naeem against whom the Bank has also lodged an FIR that, therefore, the claimant has lodged this claim on the basis of forged receipt. In cross-examination he has admitted that the receipt Mark "A", bears the stamp alongwith signature of the Bank Authority. He gave evasive denial about the bank stamp of MCB on Mark "B". When subjected to further cross-examination, Javaid Sharif Manager Allied Bank Ltd, Satiana Road Branch Faisalabad, affected his ignorance whether or not Haji Muhammad Sadiq claimant had deposited the disputed cheque of MCB in his account at Allied Bank Ltd, Satiana Road Branch Faisalabad, through receipt No.405728 or that the defendant's Bank had received the disputed amount from the Muslim Commercial Bank Satiana Road Branch Faisalabad. For further clarification, the said Muhammad Ahmad S/O Muhammad Bashir was summoned as court Witness who sworn his affidavit EX-CW2/1, showing that he purchased one canal agricultural land from the son and wife of Haji Muhammad Sadiq the claimant in lieu of which he had handed over the disputed cheque of the said denomination of Muslim Commercial Bank Satiana Road Branch Faisalabad, of his account No.3828-5 to the claimant who deposited the same cheque in the Bank of the defendants and that he never issued any cheque in favour of Yaseen Traders. Javaid Sharif Manager Allied Bank Ltd, Satiana Road Branch Faisalabad, was against summoned as court witness who disclosed in cross-examination that he could not identify the person who deposited the disputed cheque in the Bank. However, he has submitted the copy of statement of account of Yaseen Traders tending to show that the amount of disputed cheque was deposited in the account of Yaseen Traders.
7. From the above said scenario, as depicted from the evidence of the parties, the following points are crystal clear to my entire satisfaction: a. Muhammad Ahmad S/O Muhammad Bashir handed over the disputed cheque to the claimant and the claimant has deposited the said cheque in the Bank of the defendants on the same date on 31.07.2009, as the claimant has produced over whelming, confidence inspiring evidence in this regard; b. Its so transpires from the evidence of the defendants that the cheque issued by Muhammad Ahmad in favour of the claimant has been received by their Bank but that such amount of the cheque has been deposited in the account of Yaseen Traders. However, such version of the defendants is not believe able on four fold grounds as under: I. he defendants such stand is not their first version in their written statement therefore, seems to be after thought and fabricated; II. The court has itself tried to trace out the Yaseen Traders and sent notice on their given address but such type of Traders could not be traced out; III. The claimant has sworn affidavit that the company by the name and style of Yaseen Traders is a fictitious person"
IV. The defendant's admission that the cheque of Muhammad Ahmad has been deposited in the defendant's Bank falsified their stand that the claimant was collusive with the then Bank Manager to extort the disputed amount from the bank.
8. From the above said facts and circumstances, I am fortified in my opinion that the defendant's Bank with any, express authority from the claimant has illegally and contrary to the established procedure and practice of Banking, transferred Rs.600000/- to the account of Yaseen Traders and this act of the Bank amounted to deficiency in the rendering of services as the Bank has clearly shown utter negligence in paying a huge amount to an unknown out sider causing loss to the account holder.
9. Before, parting with this order it would be pertinent to discuss the controversial points as raised by the learned defendant's counsel during his arguments as under: Firstly. The contention that the claimant is not "consumer" is not sustainable because the claimant having current account as also saving Bank account holder is a consumer in view of case laws (iii)
(2009)329 (Chundigarh) 992 CPR 401(402)""1992 CPC 294 (Kant); Secondly. The contention that the claimant while depositing the cheque in his account did not strike off the word bearer "in the cheque due to which the amount was transferred to the "Yaseen Traders", is un imaginable because a cheque directing the drawer i.e the Bank to pay itself can not be equated with an ordinary cheque payable to self or bearer where the Bank can pay to the bearer; Thirdly. The claimant while depositing the cheque in the defendant's Bank never deposited it to the "Yaseen Traders", hence, such defendant's contention is hereby repelled.
10. Prior to accept this claim, it is observed that the Banks being essential and almost indispensable component of modern social and economic set up, and they render vital services to the community and the community naturally feeds them, they must be over vigilant about the interests of their customers as departure from such standard causes inconvenience not only to stray individuals but widespread economic disaster. The Banks should, therefore, be enjoined to maintain their services efficient and above reapproach. The Bank's service to the claimant was deficient.
11. In awarding the cost/damages/compensation to the injured party, the claimant, the court must endeavor to get at that sum of money which will put the claimant in the same position as he would have been, if he had not sustained the wrong. Such endeavor of the court prevents the claimant to recover the remote damages which do not flow arising as direct consequences of the wrong ful act. Therefore, the defendants shall now return an amount of Rs.600000/- deposited by the claimant in their Bank alongwith interest for the during which period the amount was kept in the Bank alongwith legal expenses Rs. 10000/- within a period of 30 days. The claim is disposed of accordingly. In case of non compliance of the order the defendants shall be dealt with u/s 32(2) of the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005. File be consigned to the record room after its due completions.