Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/17/1962

MAA SHARDA TRACTORS - Complainant(s)

Versus

BR.MANAGER, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

SH.V.K.SAXENA

24 May 2024

ORDER

M. P. STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,                         

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

 

FIRST APPEAL NO. 1962 OF 2017

(Arising out of order dated 28.08.2017 passed in C.C.No.235/2015 by District Commission, Shivpuri)

 

M/S MAA SHARDA TRACTORS

THROUGH PROPREITOR CHANDRAKANT GUPTA,

R/O MAIN ROAD, OPPOSITE CENTRAL BANK

OF INDIA, BHONTI, TEHSIL-PICHHOR,

DISTRICT-SHIVPURI (M.P.)                                                                            …  APPELLANT.

 

         Versus

 

BRANCH MANAGER, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA,

BRANCH-BHONTI, TEHSIL-PICHHOR,

DISTRICT-SHIVPURI (M.P.)                                                                           … RESPONDENT.   

 

BEFORE :

            HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI                : ACTING PRESIDENT

            HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY        :          MEMBER        

 

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

                Shri V. K. Saxena, learned counsel for the appellant.

           Shri Manoj Shahi, learned counsel for the respondent.

          

O R D E R

(Passed On 24.05.2024)

                                The following order of the Commission was delivered by A. K. Tiwari, Acting President:                  

                   The complainant/appellant has filed this appeal against the order dated 28.08.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shivpuri (for short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.235/2015 whereby the complaint filed by the complainant/appellant (hereinafter referred to as ‘complainant’) has been dismissed.

 

-2-

2.                Facts of the case in brief are that the complainant is having a bank account no.2320216365 under Cent Trade Loan Scheme with the opposite party-Central Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as ‘bank’).  Under the said account, the complainant was having overdraft facility up to Rs.3,50,000/-. From the said account the complainant issued one cheque no.011281 on 13.06.2015 for a sum of Rs.1,52,000/- in favour of M/S K.J.S Cement Limited, Maihar, District-Satna (M. P.) however, the opposite party-bank dishonoured the said cheque on 20.06.2015 for insufficient funds. The complainant alleged that on 20.06.2015 he was having amount of more than Rs.1,52,000/- in his account, despite that the opposite party bank wrongly dishonoured the cheque. The complainant therefore alleging deficiency in service on part of the opposite party bank approached the District Commission seeking relief of Rs.2,50,000/-.

3.                The opposite party-bank resisted the complaint stating that on several occasions the bank informed the complainant verbally as also in written to furnish balance sheets and profit loss sheets regarding his business of previous years so that overdraft facility provided to him can be renewed. On 13.05.2015 also the bank informed the complainant in this regard but the complainant did not furnish the said information as sought. On 20.06.2015 there was no facility of withdrawal under overdraft facility and due to which the cheque given by him was dishonoured. There has

-3-

been no deficiency in service on part of the opposite party-bank. It is therefore prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

4.                The District Commission dismissed the complaint as aforesaid.

5.                Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6.                Learned counsel for the complainant/appellant argued that the District Commission passed the order relying on the letter dated 13.05.2015 of the bank but did not consider the letter dated 29.06.2015 of the bank. He argued that from the bank statement it is clear that after 13.05.2015 transactions were made from the said account which shows that the account was in process, however, the District Commission did not consider this aspect. The dishonor of cheque on 13.06.2015 by the bank shows negligence on part of the bank but the District Commission did not consider this aspect. The District Commission has passed a cryptic order which cannot be sustained. The District Commission did not consider this important aspect that the bank did not produce any circular or regulations under which the action taken by the bank can be held justified. The District Commission without considering the documentary evidence available on record has erred in dismissing the complaint. He therefore prayed for setting aside the impugned order.

7.                Learned counsel for the opposite party/respondent-bank argued that for dishonor of cheque the complainant himself was liable as

-4-

despite repeated requests he did not make available the balance sheets and profit & loss sheets of the previous years and therefore, the overdraft facility could not be renewed resulting which the cheque presented was dishonoured for insufficient funds. There has been no deficiency in service on part of the bank. The District Commission has rightly dismissed the complaint as the complainant is not entitled to get any relief. He therefore prayed for dismissal of appeal.

8.                Proprietor of the complainant firm Chandrakant Gupta has  filed his affidavit along with 11 documents as per list. On behalf of bank along with reply five documents have been filed as per list.

9.               After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on careful perusal of the record and the impugned order we find it is an admitted fact 

that the complainant was having bank account with the opposite party bank with overdraft facility. It is also an admitted fact that on 13.06.2015 cheque no.011281 for a sum of Rs.1,52,000/- issued by the complainant firm in favour of M/S K.J.S Cement Limited, Maihar, District-Satna (M. P.) was dishonoured by the bank for want of sufficient funds. 

10.            The complainant has alleged that on 13.06.2015 there was more than Rs.1,52,000/- in his account and therefore the bank has wrongly dishonoured the cheque. On the other hand the defence of the opposite party-bank is that despite repeated requests, the complainant did 

-5-

not provide the balance sheets and profit & loss sheets of previous years therefore the overdraft facility could not renewed resulting to dishonor of cheque. 

11.                   The bank vide letter dated 13.05.2015 (at page 33) and letter dated 29.06.2015 (at page 34) sought balance sheets and Profit & Loss sheets for the years 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 so that the overdraft facility can be renewed. The complainant vide letter dated 09.07.2015 (at page 35) made available the aforesaid documents to the bank. Thus it is clear that till 09.07.2015 the complainant did not make available the aforesaid documents to the bank for renewal of overdraft facility. The bank vide letter dated 13.05.2015 asked the complainant to file the aforesaid documents and when the complainant failed to produce the required documents, the overdraft facility was not renewed and meanwhile the cheque presented was dishonoured on 20.06.2015 for insufficient funds. Thereafter the complainant furnished the aforesaid documents to the bank. 

12.                   From the bank statement filed by the complainant himself (at page 16) and the bank statement filed by the bank (at page 37) it is clear that on 20.06.2015 there was not an amount of Rs.1,52,000/- in the account. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the bank has committed deficiency in service in dishonouring the cheque presented. 

-6-

13.              In view of the above discussion, we find that the District Commission after appreciating the material available on record and considering the facts and circumstances of the case has rightly dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant. We do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the District Commission. Accordingly the impugned order is affirmed.

14.              In the result, this appeal being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed.  No order as to costs.

 

               (A. K. Tiwari)                          (Dr. Srikant Pandey)

            Acting President                             Member