Delhi

East Delhi

CC/88/2020

ASHOK SABHARWAL & SONS. - Complainant(s)

Versus

CANARA BANK - Opp.Party(s)

11 Aug 2020

ORDER

Complaint Case No. 88/2020

Ashok Sabharwal & Sons (HUF) vs. Canara Bank & Ors.

Date of Institution : 06.08.2020

Date of Hearing : 11.08.2020

 

11.08.2020

 

Advocate Shri G.L. Taneja alongwith Complainant in Person appeared for online hearing of this matter.

 

Arguments on Admission heard.

The facts of the case in brief is that the complainant herein has formed HUF in the name of Ashok Sabharwal & Sons and has purchased 6 bonds of Rural Electrical Corporation Ltd. (RECL) on 31.03.2005 which was to mature on 31.03.2008.  The complainant alleges that the payment of the said maturity amount of the above bonds was made by Canara Bank (OP-1 & 2) in a wrong account, maintained by one Ms. Suman Sethi and not in the account of the complainant.

The maturity value of the bonds was Rs. 31,615/- for which a cheque was issued by M/s. Rural Electrical Corporation Ltd. (RECL) (not a party) bearing cheque no. 711648 dated 31.03.2008.  However, it is the case of the complainant that the said cheque was never received by the complainant and was encashed by the OP bank in favour of one Ms. Suman Sethi in her account no. 18443, maintained at Karol Bagh branch of the OP bank. 

The complainant also alleges that the said bond was lost and he was not able to trace the said bond in the year 2008.  The bond was subsequently found sometimes in the year 2018.  However, there is no document on record including any FIR or police complaint which indicates that the said bond was lost and the complainant has taken any steps to report the loss of the said bond.  The complainant also alleges that in the year 2018, when he found the said bond, he communicated with Rural Electrical Corporation Ltd. (RECL) as well as the Branch Manager of the OP bank.  Through the said communications, he came to know about the payment of the maturity amount was done in favour of Ms. Suman Sethi in some other bank account and not in his favour.  The complainant alleges that the OP bank has fraudulently deposited the amount in some other bank account which was not in the name of the complainant. 

The complainant has also sent a legal notice through an advocate to the Canara Bank on 22.08.2018 alleging fraudulent transaction on the behest of the OP bank.  The said legal notice was duly replied by the bank on 17.09.2018.  Thereafter, the complainant has sent a final notice to the OP bank on 30.12.2019 which was again replied by the OP bank on 06.01.2020 indicating that the complainant’s claim was not valid.  Thereafter, the complainant has filed this complaint.

      We have gone through the records of the complaint and also heard the arguments of the Ld. Advocate. 

At the beginning itself, we are of the opinion that this complaint is barred by limitation and that is the enough ground for dismissal of the complaint.  However, even on merits, we do not find any reason for entertaining this complaint.

The first cause of action arose in this case in the year 2008, when the alleged fraudulent transaction took place and the money was deposited in the bank account of some other account.  However, at that point of time, the complainant did not take any action against the bank or even did not care to report the loss of the bond which he alleges in this complaint.  The allegation of loss of the bond has been raised by the complainant only while filing this complaint, but such allegation has not been substantiated by any evidence.  The complainant has started communicating with the OP bank and also with Rural Electrical Corporation Ltd. (RECL) in the year 2018 and he has also not explained the reason for not communicating with them since 2008 till 2018.  The complainant has also not explained that how the limitation in this matter is still running and what gave rise and fresh cause of action to him. 

In this context, we would like to refer to the judgements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kandimalla Raghavaiah & Company vs. National Insurance Company, 2009 (7) SCC 768 in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court  has clearly indicated that the cause of action arises when the incident in question takes place.  A subsequent event does not give fresh cause of action to the complainant for filing a complaint.  Hence, the limitation is to be calculated from the date when the first cause of action comes out / the incident has takes place.

Reliance is also placed on the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State Bank of India vs. B.S. Agriculture Industries (I), 2009 (5) SCC 121, in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that condonation of delay is possible only if sufficient reason has been shown in the condonation of delay application and the Consumer Forum has to give the reason in the said condonation of delay.   In this case, the first cause of action took place in 2008 and there is no explanation for the delay in filing the complaint.

Further, the complainant has neither filed any application seeking condonation of delay nor has given any sufficient reason explaining the delay in filing this complaint.  Mere arguments that the bond was lost in the year 2008 and he found the bond in the year 2018 is not sufficient reason because there is no document including any police complaint indicating that the said bond was actually lost and the complainant was not in possession of the said bond during the said period.

Relying on the above two judgements, the case is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay alone.  However, even on the merits, the case is not liable to be admitted for following reasons:

1. The complaint has established contact with Rural Electrical Corporation Ltd. (RECL) (not a party) on 09.01.2018 through its depository RCMC Share Registry Pvt. Ltd. (not a party).  Through the email, the complaint has asked the current status of the bonds.  However, the complainant did not receive any reply of the said email, so he contacted the Rural Electrical Corporation Ltd. (RECL) on 18.04.2018 which again was not replied by the said organization.  Thereafter, the complainant has contacted his bank (OP-1&2) on 25.04.2018 and 16.05.2018 (letter received by bank on 18.05.2018).  The said letters of the complainant was duly replied by the bank in which the bank has informed the complainant that the bank has contacted  and has obtained information from Rural Electrical Corporation Ltd. (RECL).  The information received from Rural Electrical Corporation Ltd. (RECL) indicated that at the time of purchase of the bond, the complainant has given the bank account no. as 18443, maintained at Canara Bank, Karol Bagh branch, in the application form for purchase of the bond in question from Rural Electrical Corporation Ltd. (RECL).  The copy of the application form was also annexed by the bank and that also forms the record as well.

We have seen the form, duly signed by the complainant and it clearly mentions the account number of the complainant as 18443 in Canara Bank, Karol Bagh branch.  Once, the complainant has given a wrong account number to the Rural Electrical Corporation Ltd. (RECL), he cannot subsequently make an allegation that the cheque which was drawn in favour of the account no. 18443 was fraudulently issued or fraudulently cleared by the bank in wrong account.

It is also a settled principle that for the wrongs committed by the complainant, the OP cannot be held responsible.  In the case in hand, the documents clearly indicate that the account number given by the complaint and the account number mentioned in the maturity cheque, issued by Rural Electrical Corporation Ltd. (RECL) are the same.  When the complainant has given the wrong account number to the Rural Electrical Corporation Ltd. (RECL), he cannot subsequently make allegation that the amount was fraudulently encashed in some other bank account. Hence, for this reason, even on the merits, the complaint is liable to be dismissed as the allegations of the complaint are not substantiated by the documents and the facts stated by the complainant.

2. The entire transaction and the facts of the case clearly involved Rural Electrical Corporation Ltd. (RECL) which in our opinion is a necessary party for deciding this complaint.  The cheque was issued by the Rural Electrical Corporation Ltd. (RECL) in favour of the account number 18443 and the said cheque was deposited and transferred in the same account number which was referred to in the cheque issued by the Rural Electrical Corporation Ltd. (RECL).  Hence, Rural Electrical Corporation Ltd. (RECL) becomes a necessary party which has not been impleaded as a party in the case in hand, by the complainant.  Non impleadment of a necessary party is fetal to the case as no effective order can be passed behind the back of such necessary party. 

Hence, this complaint is dismissed on all three grounds referred above viz. (i) Limitation, (ii) Lack of Merit as well as (iii) Non impleadment of necessary party in the list.

The complaint is dismissed.  No order as to cost.

Copy of the order be given Dasti to the party.

 

(P.N. Tiwari)                                                                                      (Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar)

    Member                                                                                                      President