Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/1139/2019

Harsimran Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Canara Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Adv. Siddharth Gulati & Anshul Jindal

15 Jun 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint  No	:	1139 of 2019
Date  of  Institution	:	25.11.2019
Date   of   Decision	:	15.06.2021

 

 

 

 

Harsimran Singh c/o Central Clinical labs, R/o H.No.2057, Sector 15-C, Chandigarh.

             …..Complainant

 

Versus

1]  Canara Bank, SCO 367, Sector 32-D, Chandigarh, through its Manager.

   ….. Opposite Party

 

2]  CPC Diagnostics Pvt. Ltd., having its registered office at No.9 and 10, 5^th Floor, Gokul Tower, Near Mooambika Complex, 9, CP Ramaswamy Road, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, through its authorized representative.

   ….. Proforma Respondent

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN             PRESIDENT

         SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER 

                    SH.B.M.SHARMA                      MEMBER

 

 

Argued by :- Sh.Anshul Jindal, Adv. for complainant

  Sh.Nitin Gupta, Adv. for OP No.1.

  OP No.2 exparte.

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

         Briefly stated, the complainant running business under the name of ‘Central Clinical Labs’, is having Account No.2448201000407 with OP No.1 Bank.  It is averred that the complainant issued a post dated cheque bearing No.327139, dated 20.8.2019 amounting to Rs.62,217/- to proforma OP (Ann.C-1).  It is also averred that though the said cheque was to be honoured on or after 20.8.2019, but the OP No.1 bank honoured the same by transferring the cheque amount much before the cheque date i.e. on 14.8.2019 (6 days prior), as a result the complainant suffered loss as he has to stop certain payments of other clients and also faced harassment (Ann.C-2). The matter was reported to the OP Bank by way of sending legal notice dated 3.9.2019 for compensating the complainant, but to no avail. Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging the said act & conduct of the OP Bank as deficiency in service.

 

2]       The OP No.1/Canara Bank has filed reply stating that the complainant is a commercial entity and having current bank account with answering OP in the name of ‘Central Clinical Lab’. and the cheque in question was issued towards commercial/business transaction by the bank, hence complainant is not a ‘consumer’ as per The Consumer Protection Act.  It is stated that the cheque in question was presented by the payee to his bank on 13.8.2019 for clearing and the clearing of cheque was done Online on 14.8.2019.  It is also stated that OP No.2 is at fault in presenting cheque for clearing before its due date. It is denied that the complainant suffered any loss.  Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegations, the OP No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

 

         OP No.2 did not turn up despite service of notice, hence it was proceeded again exparte vide order dated 9.3.2020.

 

3]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

4]       We heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have perused the entire record.

 

5]       Evidently, the post-dated cheque issued by the complainant bearing No.327139, dated 20.8.2019 amounting to Rs.62,217/- has been cleared by the OP Bank before the due date.  The complainant has approached this Commission with the grievance that the act of the OP has caused harassment. The statement of accounts by the complainant nowhere reflects that the complainant has suffered any loss financial or reputation. The complainant was having sufficient amount in his account on the day when the amount in question was disbursed from his account and having sufficient amount to pay even under the subsequent transactions. The complainant has not placed on record any document in particular showing any loss of any type.  Undoubtly the act of honouring the post dated-cheque in advance is negligence in performing the duty diligently and it should have been verified thoroughly before honouring.

 

6]       Had the complainant suffered any loss of reputation or any financial loss or faced any litigation, he should have brought forward such evidence on record, which is lacking in the present case, to establish the claim of the complainant.  In our opinion, the said unintentional error on the part of OP is not malafide rather bona fide and may has occurred due to oversight; as such do not call for any penal action.  However, the OP Bank is directed to be vigilant & careful to avoid such error in future.

 

7]       Taking into consideration the above discussion and findings, the present compliant is hereby dismissed being without merit.  No order as to costs.

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

15^th June, 2021                                                                                                                                                              sd/-   

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

 (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(B.M.SHARMA)

MEMBER