DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC. No. 244 of 05-09-2008<br /> Decided on : 11-02-2008 <br /> <br /> Punit Miglani S/o Sh. Dev Raj Miglani, R/o H. No. 28425, Gali Backside Dharam Shala Wali, now resident of H. No. 5036, Affim Wali, Bathinda.<br /> <br /> ... Complainant <br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1.Canara Bank, Civil Lines Branch, Bathinda, through its Branch Manager Sh. R K Aggarwal.<br /> 2.Canara Bank, Regional Office, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh through its Regional Manager Sh. B V Shetty<br /> 3.Dinesh Kumar, Clerk, Canara Bank, Civil Lines Branch, Bathinda.<br /> <br /> ... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection<br /> Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM <br /> <br /> Dr.Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member<br /> <br /> Present : Sh. Iqbal Bansal, Advocate, counsel for the complainant<br /> Sh. Sham Singh Jaura, Advocate, counsel for the opposite parties<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> DR. PHULINDER PREET, MEMBER<br /> 1. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he is holding an account No. 5081 with opposite party No. 1 at Bathinda and was using the same for making transactions. He got issued cheque book containing cheques No. 466961 to 467000 from opposite party No. 1 against the said account. Out of Cheques No. 466964 to 467000 some of the cheques which were bearing his signatures were lost on 25.4.06. He got registered DDR No. 3 dated 25.4.06 in the Police Station, Kotwali, Bathinda, in this context. To avoid misuse of his blank signed cheques, he moved an application to opposite party No. 1 to stop their payment. Later on one Kuldeep Singh son of Sh. Nanak Singh, resident of Grain Market, Bathinda, misused one of the blank signed cheque No. 466964 and presented the same for its encashment before opposite party No. 1 after filling the amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- in it. The opposite party No. 1 instead of giving remark of stop payment, dishonoured the cheque by giving remarks 'Not arranged for/Exceed arrangement' vide returning memo dated 2.6.06. Thereafter, said Kuldeep Singh filed a complaint U/S 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act against him and he has been convicted by the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda, to undergo RI for a period of one year and also to pay compensation to Kuldeep Singh to the tune of Rs. 4,50,000/- vide order dated 12.6.2008. Due to the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties, he has been held guilty for committing the offence due to which he has suffered mental tension, agony botheration and loss of reputation. As such, he is entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000/- besides costs of the complaint in the sum of Rs. 5500/-.<br /> 2. Opposite parties filed reply taking legal objections that complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands as he has lodged false DDR regarding loss of his blank signed cheques; he has not filed any DDR against Kuldeep Singh which also proves that he is filing false proceedings and reports before various authorities and complaint being false is liable to be dismissed. On merits, it is admitted that he is holding account No. 5081 with opposite party No. 1. However, it is stated that it is CC limit OD account and all the withdrawls and deposits made by him are shown in this account. The balance in this account should not exceed Rs. 8,00,000/-. It is submitted that when cheque No. 466964 issued by the complainant was received, the balance in the limit account was already more than Rs. 8,00,000/-. Hence, the cheque was returned with remarks “Not arranged for-exceeds arrangements.” It is submitted that complainant has concocted the story of loss of cheques and has lodged a false DDR No. 3 dated 25.6.06 after receiving summons under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. No loss has been caused to the complainant as there is no difference between stop payment and funds not arranged for because both the transactions are treated equally. It has been stated that complaint being false and vexatious, is liable to be dismissed with costs. <br /> 3. In support of his allegations contained in the complaint, complainant has produced in evidence his affidavit (Ex. C-1), photocopy of statement of account (Ex. C-2), photocopy of letter dated 25.4.06 (Ex. C-3), photocopy of DDR dated 25.4.06 (Ex. C-4) and photocopy of judgement dated 12.6.08 (Ex.C-5).<br /> 4. In rebuttal, on behalf of the opposite parties affidavit of Sh. Yash Pal Arora, Senior Manager (Ex. R-2) and copy of account statement (Ex. R-2) have been tendered in evidence.<br /> 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Apart from this, we have gone through the record.<br /> 6. Learned counsel for the opposite parties Sh. Sham Singh Jaura, Advocate, has submitted that complaint has been filed by the complainant after expiry of two years from the date of cause of action has accrued in his favour and it is barred by limitation.<br /> 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant Sh. Iqbal Bansal, Advocate, has submitted that cause of action has accrued to the complainant from the date when complainant filed application before the opposite parties for stopping payment of the amount of cheques and on the date it was dishonoured, and on every date, when the complainant was prosecuted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. <br /> 8. We find no merit in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant because as per facts brought on record, they have dishonoured the cheque in question on 2.6.06 and legal notice was served upon the complainant by drawee on 7.6.06. As per entries made in the certified copy of statement of account of the complainant Ex. C-2, a sum of Rs. 831/- has been debited by the opposite parties in the account of the complainant on 25.4.06 on account of stop payment. As such, cause of action to the complainant has accrued for filing the complaint under the Act on 7.6.06 when he received the intimation about dishonour of his cheque. We are unable to accept the plea of the complainant that cause of action has accrued to him on the date when he was prosecuted by drawee in the criminal court under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. As per Section 24-A of the Act, a period of two years is prescribed for filing the complaint from the date when cause of action has arisen. Instant complaint has been filed on 5.9.08. As such, the complaint is barred by limitation. As per sub Section 2 of Section 24-A of the Act, period of delay in filing of complaint may be condoned if any sufficient cause has been made. Complainant has not filed any application seeking condonation of delay nor his counsel in the course of arguments has made any submission. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, showing sufficient cause for condonation of delay, the same cannot be condoned. <br /> 9. In the light of findings returned by us on question of limitation, we consider it prudent, not to dewell upon merits of the case and to adjudicate the matter in controversy.<br /> 10. For the aforesaid reasons, instant complaint fails and is ordered to be dismissed for being time barred. In the facts and circumstances of the case, parties are left to bear their own costs.<br /> The copies of this order, be sent, to the parties, free of costs.<br /> File be indexed and consigned.<br /> Pronounced :<br /> 11-02-2009 (Dr. Phulinder Preet) <br /> Member <br /> <br /> ( Amarjeet Paul)<br /> Member <br /> <br /> <br />