DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC No. 86 of 14.03.2008<br /> Decided on : 27-06-2008<br /> <br /> Kiran Goyal W/o Sh. Sanjay Goyal, R/o 612-G, Shakti Nagar, Amrik Singh Road, Bathinda.<br /> ... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1.Axis Bank Limited, Registered Office, Central Processing Unit, 13 Corporate Park, Sion Trombay Road, Chembur, Mumbai 400 071 through its Managing Director.<br /> 2.Branch Manager, Axis Bank Limited, Pocket No. 6, MC Building No. 2089, TP Scheme, the Mall, Bathinda.<br /> ...Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection<br /> Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM :<br /> Sh. Lakhbir Singh, President<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the Complainant : Sh. Rajiv Gupta, Advocate.<br /> For the Opposite parties : Sh. Rajnish Rampal, Advocate.<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT <br /> 1. Complainant has her saving Account No. 242010100073723 with opposite party No. 2. She had subscribed to the public issue of BGR Energy System Limited. A sum of Rs. 94,080/- was payable to it. For that cheque No. 075762 dated 11.12.07 of the opposite party bank was issued by her. Cheque was presented by BGR Energy System Limited through their banker namely Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited at Chandigarh for collection of its amount. It is alleged by her that there was sufficient balance in her account to honour the cheque. Opposite parties through their branch at SCO 343-344, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh returned the cheque to the payee with the remarks “Exceeds arrangements” vide return memo dated 15.12.07. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited further returned the application form, cheque in question and return memo of the opposite parties issued by their Chandigarh Branch to her. She alleges that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties as they have illegally dishonoured the cheque. Their act and conduct has caused her mental tension, anxiety and botheration. Rate of per share at the time of enlistment was Rs. 989/-. She has lost profit which she was to gain after selling the shares in the market. Total loss comes to Rs. 99.764/- as the allotment price per share was Rs. 480/- and the rate opened in the market was Rs. 989/- per share. She had applied for 196 shares. In this manner total loss is the difference in issue price and market price X total number of shares applied for, come to Rs. 99.764/-. In these circumstances, this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as 'Act') has been preferred seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite parties to pay her Rs. 99,764/- on account of loss of profit in the allotment of shares of BGR Energy System Limited; Rs. 50,000/- as compensation and cost of the complaint.<br /> 2. Opposite parties filed their version taking legal objections that complaint is not maintainable; she has no locus standi and cause of action to file it; she is estopped from filing the complaint by her act and conduct and complaint has been filed on false and vague allegations. They do not dispute the fact that complainant has her saving account with opposite party No. 2. Inter-alia their plea is that account was opened strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions and they and complainants are bound by them. Complainant had issued cheque in favour of BGR Energy Public Issue for Rs. 94,080/- i.e. for an amount more than the arrangements allowed by her to them. Arrangements allowed was only upto Rs. 50,000/- and not beyond that. She was issued at par cheque book and the cheque in question was presented at the service branch at Chandigarh. This clearing centre is outstanding clearing centre. As per agreement, at par cheques are payable at all branches of the opposite parties and that for clearing payments at outstation centres, the cheque amount should not exceed Rs. 50,000/-. Cheque issued by the complainant was for an amount of more than the arrangements allowed by her. It has been clearly mentioned in the cheque that it is payable at all branches of AXIS Bank in India and not to exceed Rs. 50,000/- for clearing payment at outstation centres. Since complainant herself allowed the arrangements to the opposite parties only upto the extent of Rs. 50,000/- and as such, they were not competent to honour the cheque. Accordingly, it was returned as dishonoured for the reasons 'Exceeds Arrangements' as it was issued for Rs. 94,080/-. It was not dishonoured for insufficient funds. They deny the remaining averments in the complaint.<br /> 3. In support of her averments contained in the complaint, complainant has produced in evidence her affidavit (Ex. C-1), photocopy of statement of account (Ex. C-2), photocopy of letter dated 29.1.08 (Ex. C-3), photocopy of application form (Ex. C-4), photocopy of cheque return memo (Ex. C-5), photocopy of cheque dated 11.12.07 (Ex. C-6), photocopy of Item Copy Request (Ex. C-7) and copy of the “Economic Times” dated 10.1.08 (Ex. C-8).<br /> 4. In rebuttal, on behalf of the opposite parties affidavit of Sh. Ravikant, Branch Head cum Assistant Vice President (Ex. R-1) and photocopy of letter dated 14.1.08 (Ex. R-2) have been tendered in evidence.<br /> 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Besides this, we have gone through the record.<br /> 6. Some facts do not remain in dispute in this case. They are that complainant has her saving account with opposite party No. 2. She had issued cheque copy of which is Ex. C-6 for Rs. 94,080/- in favour of BGR Energy System Limited on 11.12.07. It was presented by BGR Energy System Limited with its bankers namely Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited at Chandigarh for collection. It had sent it to the branch of the opposite parties at SCO 434-344, Sector 35-D, Chandigarh. It returned the cheque with the remarks “Exceeds Arrangements”. Copy of the cheque return memo is Ex. C-5. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited returned the Application Form alongwith cheque return memo of the branch of the opposite parties. Copies of the letter and application of Kotak Mahindra Limited are Ex. C-3 & Ex. C-4 respectively.<br /> 7. Ex. C-2 is the copy of the statement of account of the complainant with opposite party No. 2. It indicates that on 15.12.07 outstanding balance in the account of the complainant and her husband was Rs. 99803.76. Contention of the learned counsel for the complainant is that there was sufficient balance in the account of the complainant to honour the cheque of Rs. 94,080/- on 15.12.07 but the opposite parties illegally and against the principles of natural justice dishonoured it and as such, there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. He argued that even if it is taken that the out station clearing centre could clear the payment of Rs. 50,000/-, the cheque could be honoured to this extent.<br /> 8. Mr. Rampal, learned counsel for the opposite parties argued that the evidence on the record does not establish any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. The branch of the opposite parties at Chandigarh was well within its right to dishonour the cheque for the reasons as it was exceeding arrangements.<br /> 9. We have considered the rival contentions. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we feel ourselves inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the opposite parties. Complainant in her affidavit Ex. C-1 does not state that there was no agreement to the effect that for clearing payments at outstation centres, the cheque amount should not exceed Rs. 50,000/-. To the contrary, there is affidavit Ex. R-1 of Sh. Ravikant, Branch Head cum Assistant Vice president of the opposite party Bank at The Mall, Bathinda who supports the version of the opposite parties in the reply of the complaint. Admittedly cheque was presented for clearing payment at service branch at Chandigarh. That clearing centre is an outstation clearing centre. Complainant had issued the cheque for more amount than the arrangements allowed by her. A perusal of the copy of the cheque reveals that “it was payable at par at all branches of AXIS Bank in India.. Not to exceed Rs. 50,000/- for clearing payments at outstation centres”. Complainant while issuing the cheque of Rs. 94,080/- was well aware that cheque should not exceed Rs. 50,000/- for clearing payment at outstation centres. Despite this, she issued cheque for more amount than Rs. 50,000/- in favour of BGR Energy Public Issue. It was presented for clearing payment at outstation centre Chandigarh. Accordingly branch of the opposite party bank was well within its right to dishonour the cheque on the ground that it “Exceeds Arrangements”. She issued a cheque in question for a sum of Rs. 94,080/- i.e. for amount more than the arrangements allowed by her to the opposite party bank. It was only upto Rs. 50,000/- and not beyond that. Submission of the learned counsel for the complainant that cheque could be cleared for Rs. 50,000/- is not tenable. Honouring or dishonouring of an instrument can be in toto. Learned counsel for the complainant could not show us any rules of the Bank according to which cheque can be honoured or dishonoured in parts. Statement of account copy of which is Ex. C-2 does not advance the cause of the complainant because cheque has not been dishonoured for insufficient funds. Rather it was dishonoured as it was exceeding arrangements. In these circumstances, no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties is established.<br /> 10. In the result, complaint being devoid of merits, is dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs. <br /> Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to record room.<br /> Pronounced :<br /> 27-06-2008 (Lakhbir Singh )<br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr.Phulinder Preet) <br /> Member<br /> 'iki' <br />