Delhi

North East

CC/176/2014

Kishan Kr. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bank of Baroda - Opp.Party(s)

16 Sep 2022

ORDER

-DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 176/14

 

In the matter of:

 

	Shri Kishan Kumar S/o Shri Bahu Lal R/o House No-A-605, Street No-13, Mandoli, Delhi-110093	Complainant
	Versus
1       2       3.	Bank of Baroda, Bank Manager Residence-0643, Mandoli, Near Nand Nagri Bus Depot, Delhi-110093   Nisha Devi & Jai Bahadur Residence-C-1 134,B, Pratap vihar-111, Sulman Nagar, Kiradi, Delhi-110086   Shri Bansidhar S/o Shri Raghunath Prasad R/o D-1 Brij Vihar, Prem Nagar III, Kirari, Delhi-110086. (Impleaded vide order dated 02.05.17 and was proceeded against Ex-parte on 15.01.18)	Opposite Party No.1         Opposite Party No.2                         Opposite Party No.3

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:        JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                           DATE OF ORDER:

12.05.2014 19.07.2022 16.09.2022

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

 

ORDER

      Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986.

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that the Complainant had to give Rs. 1,00,000/- to the Opposite Party No.2 regarding this he issued a cheque in favour of Opposite Party No.2. On 09.04.2013, the complainant received a call from the Opposite Party bank that the cheque cannot be passed because the signature of the complainant was not matching so the complainant decided to give  Rs. 1,00,000/- cash to Opposite Party No.2. Then the Opposite Party No.2 collected the cash of Rs. 1,00,000/- from his house.  It is stated by the complainant that when he was travelling somewhere and he got a call from Opposite Party No.1 bank about the clearance of the cheque he told not to  pass the cheque as the signatures were not matching then suddenly he got a message regarding the clearance of his cheque on his phone.  The complainant had lodged a complaint about the cheque clearance on customer care and asked his wife to contact to the Bank Manager in this regard. The complainant got the response that the cheque had been passed and nothing can be done now. The complainant has also stated that he had lodged a police complaint in P.S Aman vihar where he did not get a satisfactory response and was suggested to file a court case. On 20.12.13, the complainant received a call from the Opposite Party bank that they have called the Clearing Officer who told that the cheque was passed in hurry. The complainant had asked them for this statement in written but they denied it. The complainant had written about this to the indraprastha, delhi, Bank of Baroda. The complainant stated that he asked for the reply in indraprastha several times but he did not get a reply. The complainant submitted that the report of indraprastha in his favour. The complainant stated that the information about report is also a lie. Hence, this act of both the Opposite Parties shows deficiency on its part. Complainant had prayed for directing the Opposite Parties to refund of his Rs. 1,00,000/- along with interest. He has also prayed for Rs. 10,00,000 on account of mental harassment.
2. The Opposite Party No.1 contested the case and filed written statement. Opposite Party No. 1 denied each and every allegations, contentions and statement made by the Complainant. It is stated by the Opposite Party No-1 that the complaint is without any merit and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.  It is alleged that the cheque in question was passed in due course and after verification of signature. It is alleged that cheque was passed after getting confirmation from the Complainant regarding having issued the cheque.
3. In support of his case, the Complainant filed his affidavit. In support of its case Opposite Party No.1 has filed affidavit Shri Dharam Pal, Chief Manager at Bank of Baroda. We have heard the Counsel for the Complainant. We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by the Complainant, Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.2.

 

4. The case of the Complainant is that he had issued cheque of Rs. 1,00,000/- in favour of Opposite Party No.2 in discharge of some liability. It is his case that he received a call for Opposite Party No.1 that his signature was not matching on the cheque. However, the Complainant had told the said caller from the bank that the said cheque had been issued by him. The case of the Complainant is that after receiving the said call from the bank the Opposite Party No.2 had collected the cash of Rs. 1,00,000 from his house. On the other hand, the case of Opposite Party No.1 is that the cheque was clear only after confirmation from the Complainant regarding having issued the cheque.

 

5. It is not disputed that the Complainant did not issue the cheque in question. It is also not disputed that he confirmed the caller from the bank that he had issued the said cheque. The Complainant did not issue instructions to the bank not to clear the cheque as he had paid Rs. 1,00,000 in cash to the holder of the cheque i.e. Opposite Party No.2. Further, the Complainant has not given any proof to show that the Opposite Party No.2 had collected cash of Rs. 1,00,000 from his house in lieu of the cheque amount. Therefore, in the totality of the circumstances the case of the Complainant is not believable. Therefore the complaint is dismissed.
6. Order announced on 16.09.2022.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President