Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/125/2012

M/s Neelgiri Traders - Complainant(s)

Versus

AXIS Bank Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Rajiv Kaushik

02 Jun 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA   NAGAR

                                                                                         Complaint No. 125  of  2012.

                                                                                         Date of institution: 02.02.2012.

                                                                                         Date of decision: 02.06.2016.

M/s Neelgiri Traders, Court Road, Jagadhri through its Prop. Rajinder Sharma aged about 36 years son of Sh. Ved Parkash.                                                                                 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  …Complainant.

                                    Versus

1. AXIS Bank Ltd. Mela Singh Chowk, Yamuna Nagar, through its Branch Manager. 
2. AXIS Bank Ltd., SCO No.20, 21, 22, Sector -34-A, Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager.  
3. Axis Bank Ltd, Trishul Opposite Samathershawar Temple, Near Lal Garden Ellisbrudge, Ahmedabad, through its Manager.

                                                                                                                                                         … Respondents.

 

                         

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present: Sh. Rajiv Kaushish, Advocate, counsel for complainant.   

              Sh. Nalin Gupta, Advocate, counsel for Respondents.    

 

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 praying therein that respondents (hereinafter referred as OPs) be directed to refund the cheque amount of Rs. 30,000/- which was lost from the drop box of the OPs Bank at Chandigarh and also to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses.    

2.                     Brief facts, as alleged by the complainant, are that complainant having its account with the OP No.1 i.e. Axis Bank Ltd. Yamuna Nagar bearing account No. 581010200001557. A firm M/s Super Wood Works, Chandigarh which deals the business with the complainant firm had issued a cheque bearing No. 732284 dated 26.08.2010 amounting to Rs. 30,000/- drawn on State Bank of India, Sector-31 Chandigarh where the said i.e. M/s Super Wood Works Chandigarh was having its account, to discharge its liabilities towards the complainant’s Firm. The complainant dropped the said cheque in the cheque drop box kept in the premises of Op No.2. i.e. Axis Bank Ltd. Sector 34-A, Chandigarh for clearing the same when the amount was not credited in the account of the complainant then the complainant contacted the OP No.1 at Yamuna Nagar with which the complainant firm was having account. On enquiry it came to the notice of the complainant that some cheques had been lost from the cheque drop box of Op No.2 at Chandigarh, when it was broke up by the official of the Bank. Subsequently, complainant informed about the incident to the said firm who had issued the cheque and the said firm disclosed that the cheque in dispute had been encashed and amount had been deducted from its firm’s account. Complainant requested the OPs to take some steps for refund of the amount to the complainant as the OPs No.1 & 2 admitted that cheque of the complainant had been lost from the ATM Cheque drop Box of OP NBo.2. Since, then the complainant is visiting to the bank of the OPs but till date amount of Rs. 30,000/- has not been refunded to the complainant. Hence, this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint because as per version of the complainant, the cheque in question has neither been deposited nor passed within the jurisdiction of this Forum; complaint is bad for mis joinder of necessary parties as on enquiry it was found that SBI Derabasi (Punjab) has passed i.e. debited and credited the alleged instrument/ cheque, therefore, SBI  Derabasi (Punjab) is liable for any consequences, if any;  no cause of action has arisen at Yamuna Nagar; there is no consumer dispute between the parties; complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and has concealed the true and material facts. The true facts are that in the intervening night of 26/27.08.2010, there was a drop box breakage incident inside the Axis Bank Ltd. ATM Premises SCO 20-21-22, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh and some cheques were stolen. Immediately a DDR bearing No. 45 dated 27.08.2010 (Annexure R-1) was lodged with the concerned police station at Chandigarh and further immediately all the members bank and MICR CPC was intimated about the break in the above mentioned drop box at Sector 34-A Chandigarh. A show cause notice (Annexure R-3) was also issued to the Guarding Agency for lapse in the service. The Firm who had issued the cheque in question i.e. M/s Super Wood Work, Chandigarh, then approached the  OP No.2 Bank on 31.08.2010 (Annexure R-4) that the cheque, allegedly dropped in the above mentioned drop box, which was issued to M/s Neel Giri Traders, Yamuna Nagar has been debited from its Firm’s account but has not been credited to the complainant’s/Firm’s Account. After that on 01.09.2010, authorized signatory of the  complainant’s firm M/s Neel Giri Traders wrote a letter (Annexure R-5) to OP No.2 Bank that his firm has not received the amount of the cheque in question, however, it has been debited from the drawer account bearing No. 30045391179 of M/s Super Wood Work, Chandigarh. On the basis of above mentioned letters/ complaints, the OP No.2 Bank took up the above mentioned erroneous debit of the said cheque from the drawers account with SBI Derabasi from which the cheque in question was passed and  SBI Sector 31 Branch Chandigarh where the drawer M/s Super Wood Work, Chandigarh has an account (Annexure R-6). Further, the OP No.2 Bank on 07.09.2010 intimated the police about the said erroneous debit from the drawers account No.30048391179 with SBI, Branch Sector 31, Chandigarh and cleared by SBI Derabasi, Branch (Punjab) (Annexure R-7). After that on 25.10.2010 the complainant was asked by the OPs Bank to follow up with the SBI Bank as the said cheque was paid by the SBI Derabasi. Even, the OPs Bank wrote a letter to its local Head Office at SBI informing them about the erroneous passing of the said cheque and further requested them to look into the matter (Annexure R-9). A meeting of both the Banks Officers took place at Derabasi Branch on 29.04.2011 where a letter asking them as to how they have passed a cheque basis a scan copy (Annexure R-11). Even after that official of OP No.2 Chandigarh Bank delivered a letter stating therein to look into the matter and provide refund to the customers but the official of the SBI replied to the OP No.2 Bank that they cannot accede the request as the cheques were stolen from drop box of the Axis Bank at Chandigarh.

4.                     Further, it has been mentioned that in addition to noted above, there is no material proof that the cheque was ever deposited in the said drop box which was broken in the intervening night of 26/27.08.2010, as from the attached out word clearing report dated 28.8.2011 (following days) no such cheque was received by OP No.2 Bank in clearing.  Lastly, as the cheque amount has been transferred from the SBI Branch Sector-31 Chandigarh to SBI Branch Derabasi (Punjab) and the OPs Bank i.e. Axis Banks nowhere in both sides of the transactions i.e. neither debited nor credited of the said instrument, so, there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OPs Bank and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. On merit, reiterated the stand taken in the preliminary objections and lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint.

5                      To prove the case, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CX and documents such as Photo copy of letter dated 25.10.2010 as Annexure C-1, Photo copy of letter dated 20.11.2010 as Annexure C-2, Photo copy of letter dated 16.06.2011 as Annexure C-3, photo copy of complaint regarding payment of materially altered cheque as Annexure C-4 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

6.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OPs tendered into evidence photo copy of DDR No. 45 dated 27.8.2010 as Annexure R-1, Photo copy of letter dated 27.08.2010 as Annexure R-2, Photo copy of letter dated 31.08.2010 as Annexure R-4, Photo copy of letter dated 31.08.2010 as Annexure R-4, Photo copy of letter dated 01.09.2010 as Annexure R-5, Photo copy of letter dated 03.09.2010 as Annexure R-6, Photo copy of letter dated 7.9.2010 as Annexure R-7, Photo copy of letter dated 20.11.2010 as Annexure R-8, Photo copy of letter dated 11.12.2010 as Annexure R-9 Photo copy of letter dated 28.03.2011 as Annexure R-10, Photo copy of letter dated 29.04.2011 as Annexure R-11, Photo copy of letter dated 30.04.2011 as Annexure R-12, Photo copy of letter dated 25.05.2011 as Annexure R-13, Photo copy of letter dated 27.10.2010 as Annexure R-14, Photo copy of letter dated 16.11.2011 as Annexure R-15, Photo copy of letter dated 25.10.2010 as Annexure R-16 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.

7.                     We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely and carefully.

8.                     Without deciding the case on merit, after hearing both the parties at length and after going through the contents of complaint and evidence produced on the file by both the parties, we are of the considered view that the complaint of the complainant is without jurisdiction as the impugned cheque of Rs. 30,000/- was droped in the drop box situated in the premises of AXIS Bank Ltd. Sector 34-A, Chandigarh, as admitted by the complainant himself in his complaint. Further the said cheque was presented by the culprits at SBI Derabasi (Punjab) after stolen the cheque from the drop box of Axis Bank, Sector-34A, Chandigarh. Even the impugned cheque was issued by Firm’s M/s Super Wood Works, Chandigarh drawn on SBI Branch Sector-31, Chandigarh. Further the FIR has also been lodged at Chandigarh in respect of theft of cheques. As such, no cause of action has arisen at Yamuna Nagar.  Hence, this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint as per Section 11(2)(a)(b)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which is reproduced as under:

(a)        the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint actually and voluntarily resides or [ carries on business or has a branch office or] personally works for gain, or

(b)        any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or [carries on business or has a branch office] or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the permission of the District Forum is given, or the opposite parties who do not reside, or [carry on business or have a branch office] or personally work for gain, as the case may be acquiesce in such institution; or

(c )       the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.

9.                     Although the complainant firm is having its account with the Axis Bank i.e. OP No.1 at Yamuna Nagar but as the OP No.1. i.e. Axis Bank Yamuna Nagar Branch have no concern whatsoever with the matter involved in the present complaint. Further the present complaint is also bad on account of non-joinder of necessary parties as SBI Bank has not been impleaded in the present complaint.

                        So, we are of the considered view that as per Section 11(2) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the complaint of the complainant is beyond jurisdiction of this Forum and is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, hence, the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. However, complainant is at liberty to file his complaint before the competent court of law having jurisdiction if so advised. Exemption of time spent before this Forum is granted in terms of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Luxmi Engineering Works vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute (1995)III SCC page 583. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court. 02.06.2016.

 

                                                                                                ( ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                           PRESIDENT

 

 

 

                                                                                          (S.C.SHARMA)

                                                                                           MEMBER