Per Mrs.S.P. Lale, Hon’ble Member
This appeal is filed by original complainant-Shri Prakash Dhanraj Kothari against the order dated 12/03/2003 passed in consumer complaint No.135/2001 by the District Consumer Forum, Solapur, whereby the District Consumer Forum dismissed the complaint on the ground that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opponents.
2. Admittedly, org. complainant is having Saving Bank Account bearing No.5104 with Union Bank of India, Karmala Branch, District Solapur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Bank’). The complainant stated that mother of the complainant was ill and for the purpose of her expenses, the complainant has required to pay the medical bill. Therefore, he wanted immediate money and therefore, he approached his employer-Maharashtra State Regional Transport Corporation, Solapur and borrowed `28,230/- from the Provident Fund Scheme of the employer and deposited the cheque of `28,232/- bearing No.592262 with the Bank on 01/02/2001. The complainant further stated that said cheque was not collected by the Bank. Therefore, he contacted opponent No.1 i.e. Branch Manager of the Bank. Opponent No.1 told the complainant that the cheque was sent for clearing to its main branch at Solapur, but it was misplaced during the transit and the complainant was informed accordingly. Therefore, it is alleged by the complainant that due to negligence on the part of the opponents, the appellant could not utilize said amount which he has borrowed from his provident fund account. Therefore, the complainant filed consumer complaint against opponent Nos.1&2 for deficiency in service.
3. Opponents filed their written version and denied the allegations made by the complainant. They admitted that a Saving Bank Account of the complainant with opponent No.1/Bank and further pleaded that there is no fault or intentional negligence on the part of opponents for not crediting the amount of the said cheque in the account of the complainant. They admitted that the complainant had deposited the cheque for `28,232/- with opponent No.1 for encashment and for credit of said amount in the Saving Bank Account on 01/02/2001. Accordingly, the opponent No.1 sent the said cheque for clearing to its Head Office at Solapur immediately. But, opponent No.2 which the Head Office of opponent No.1 situated at Solapur did not receive the said cheque as it was misplaced. Because of said reason, cheque could not be cleared and accordingly, the amount to that extent could not be credited in the account of the complainant. It further submitted that the cheque has been misplaced accidentally and there was no negligence whatsoever on the part of opponents nor there was any ill intention to harass the complainant. Opponents further pleaded that they immediately informed the complainant about the same by end of February itself and requested the complainant to move his office i.e. Maharashtra State Regional Transport Corporation, Solapur who has issued a cheque and to obtain duplicate cheque and also to stop the payment thereof, etc. Accordingly, complainant had written a letter in the month of March 2001 to MSRTC, whereby informing the employer about missing of the cheque and issuance of duplicate cheque and also for stop payment of the cheque. Opponents further submitted that they have not kept quiet by only informing the complainant about missing of the cheque, but they themselves have written a letter to the MSRTC, Solapur Division, who is drawer of the cheque, for issuance of duplicate cheque and for taking steps for stop payment. Thus, from the said correspondence, opponent/Bank is not negligent in performing its duty. Opponents had informed the complainant immediately that unless and until the duplicate cheque is produced, the opponent/Bank is unable to credit the amount in the Saving Bank Account of the complainant and finally, opponents prayed for dismissal of complaint.
4. In spite of notice of today’s date of hearing is given to both the parties by publishing notice on Notice Board as well as giving intimation through the website, both the parties preferred to remain absent.
5. Admitted fact is that the appellant had Saving Bank Account with respondent No.1 and appellant has deposited a cheque of `28,232/- with respondent No.1. Admittedly, said cheque was misplaced and, thus, the amount could not be collected. Immediately, respondent No.1 had informed the appellant and requested to move the officers of MSRTC, who had issued the cheque and also requested the complainant to obtain a duplicate cheque and also issued instruction to stop payment of the said cheque. Appellant had in turn written a letter to the MSRTC informing them about missing of the cheque and also requested for issuance of duplicate cheque. Respondent No.1 had also written a letter dated 09/03/2001 to MSRTC, Solapur Division, drawer of the cheque, for issuance of duplicate cheque. The respondent also informed the appellant that unless and until the duplicate cheque is produced, respondent/Bank would not be in a position to collect the amount. Under these circumstances, there cannot be a deficiency in service on the part of the Bank. Respondent/Bank after missing the cheque, immediately informed the appellant and requested him to move to his employer for issuance of duplicate cheque. Furthermore here, the Bank is a service provider which is a separate and distinct juridic person than its officer i.e. Manager of the Union Bank of India, Karmala Branch. The Bank is not a party before us. As such the ultimate dismissal of the complaint cannot be faulted with.
6. We are therefore finding that the dismissal order passed by the District Consumer Forum is sustainable in law and there is no merit in the appeal. Hence, we pass the following order :-
-: ORDER :-
1. Appeal is not admitted and stands dismissed accordingly.
2. No order as to costs.
3. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
Pronounced
Dated 7th July 2011.
