DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA(PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> C.C. No. 184 of 4.7.2007<br /> Decided on : 7.11.2007 <br /> <br /> Goldfinch Hygenic Foods Pvt. Ltd., Pathrala (Dabwali), Tehsil & District Bathinda having its registered office at 22529, Street No. 15, Bhagu Road, Bathinda through its Managing Director Rajesh Goyal S/o Sh. Sohan Lal Goyal, resident of Bathinda.<br /> ...... Complainant<br /> <br /> Versus. <br /> <br /> 1. Centurion Bank of Punjab Limited, Registered Office : Khandsa Road, Near Sector 10-A, Gurgaon-122001 through its Managing Director.<br /> 2. Branch Manager, Centurion Bank of Punjab Limited, Guru Kanshi Marg, Bathinda.<br /> ...... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986<br /> <br /> QUORUM:<br /> <br /> Sh.Lakhbir Singh, President<br /> Sh.Hira Lal Kumar, Member<br /> Dr.Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the complainant : Sh. Sanjay Goyal, Advocate<br /> For the opposite parties : Sh. Sanjay Goyal, Advocate <br /> <br /> O R D E R.<br /> <br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT:- <br /> 1. Instant one is a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as the Act) which has been preferred by the complainant seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite parties to return cheque No 759979 in original alongwith return memo; pay interest on the cheque amount of Rs. 60,450/- @ 18% P.A from the date of its presentation for collection till the date the same is returned in original; cheque amount of Rs. 60,450/- alongwith interest @ 18% P.A from the date of dishonour of cheque i.e. 12.2.2007 till the date of actual payment in case they fail to return the original cheque; Rs. 50,000/- as compensation and damages on account of loss, harassment and mental tension, besides costs of the complaint.<br /> 2. Briefly put, the case of the complainant company is that Sh. Rajesh Goyal S/o Sh. Sohan Lal Goyal is its Managing Director. It is maintaining its Current Account No. 68CA151299093 with opposite party No.2. Cheque No. 759979 for Rs. 60,450/- was presented with the opposite parties for collection in its account. No intimation was sent to it by the opposite parties regarding dishonouring of the cheque nor it was returned in original. In the statement of account issued by the opposite parties, cheque has been shown to have been dishonoured on 12.2.2007 on account of insufficient funds. Opposite parties were requested to return the original cheque alongwith cheque return memo to enable it to take legal action under the provisions of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against the party who had issued it and also for the recovery of the due amount. Opposite party failed to return the cheque. Legal notice was got issued by it to the opposite parties through its counsel. <br /> 3. Opposite parties filed their version taking legal objections that elaborate oral as well as documentary evidence is required and as such, complaint should be decided by the civil court; complainant has concealed material facts from this Forum as cheque was presented by it through Mr. Rajesh at Gujarat branch and was returned as dishonoured at Gujarat branch and that complainant did not mention this fact in the complaint with malafide intention; this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint as cheque was dishonoured in Gujarat; complaint is bad for non-joinder of branch of Centurion Bank of Punjab Limited in Gujarat; complainant is not consumer and complaint is false and frivolous. On merits, they admit that opposite party No. 2 is the branch office of opposite party No. 1 at Bathinda and complainant has account with opposite party No.2. Cheque was presented for encashment by Mr. Rajesh having mobile No.98553-22726 with Gujarat branch of Centurion Bank of Punjab Limited having branch code No. 3801. Sh. Rajesh was duly informed by the Gujarat branch regarding dishonour of the cheque. He had personally received the cheque from Gujarat branch and entry in this respect was made in the register of the bank. Mr. Rajesh had signed the entry regarding receipt of the dishonour cheque. They deny the remaining averments in the complaint. <br /> 4. In support of its allegations and averments in the complaint, complainant company tendered into evidence affidavits (Ex.C.1 & Ex.C.5) of Sh. Rajesh Goyal of its Managing Director, photocopy of statement of account (Ex.C.2), photocopy of legal notice dated 4.6.2007 (Ex.C.3), photocopy of post receipt (Ex.C.4), photocopy of certificate of incorporation (Ex.C.6) & photocopy of page No. 8 of Memorandum and Articles of Association.<br /> 5. On behalf of the opposite parties, reliance has been placed on affidavit (Ex.R.1) of Sh. Pankaj Singh Chauhan, Branch Manager, photocopy of one page of despatch register (Ex.R.2) and photocopy of Pay-in-slip (Ex.R.3). <br /> 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. Apart from this, we have considered the written arguments submitted by the complainant. <br /> 7. Learned counsel for the complainant vehementally argued that opposite parties have not returned the original cheque alongwith cheque return memo on account of which complainant could not take action under the Negotiable Instruments Act and for the recovery of the amount against the person who had issued the cheque. Opposite parties have illegally deprived it of the cheque amount. Hence, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. For this,he drew our attention to the affidavits of Sh. Rajesh Goyal which are Ex.C.1 & Ex.5, copy of the statement of account (Ex.C.2) and copy of the legal notice (Ex.C.3). <br /> 8. Learned counsel for the opposite parties countered the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant by submitting that complicated questions of law and facts are involved for which detailed oral and documentary evidence is required and on that account, matter can be adjudicated by the civil court and not by this Forum in a summary way.<br /> 9. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival arguments. Factum about the presentation of cheque No. 759979 for Rs. 60,450/- by the complainant for collection of the amount is not in dispute. Opposite parties allege that cheque was presented in Gujarat i.e. Centurion Bank of Punjab Limited, Branch Ahmedabad by one Mr. Rajesh having mobile no. 98553-22726. It was dishonoured and was returned to him by the Centurion Bank of Punjab Limited, Branch Ahmedabad on 12.2.2007 and he had appended his signatures in the register maintained by the Centurion Bank of Punjab Limited, Branch Ahmedabad. Complainant alleges that dishonoured cheque has not been returned alongwith cheque return memo despite requests. In the affidavit dated 15.10.2007, Mr. Rajesh Goyal of the complainant has stated that opposite parties have not returned the cheque to him or any authorised person of the complainant and that the receipt produced by the opposite parties does not bear his signature or the signature of any other authorised person of the complainant. Signatures which appear on the receipt are not of the person whose specimen signatures are available with the opposite parties. Against this affidavit, there is affidavit Ex.R.1 of Sh. Pankaj Singh Chauhan to the effect that cheque was presented by Sh. Rajesh having mobile No. 98553-22726 and after it was dishonoured, he had received it after signing in the cheque return register. No Handwriting expert has been examined either by the complainant or by the opposite parties to prove/disprove the version/counter version, From the affidavit dated 15.10.2007 of Sh. Rajesh Goyal, conclusion is that he wants to say that the signatures on the receipt/cheque return register are forged and are not of the person whose specimen signatures are available with the opposite parties. One of the prayers by the complainant is that opposite parties be directed to return the original cheque alongwith cheque return memo. In our view, oral, documentary, expert evidence, examination and cross examination of the witnesses are required for adjudication of the matter in controversy. Such a detailed evidence is not possible before this Forum which is to decide the complaint in a summary way and that too within the prescribed period. Similarly, matter of forgery cannot be adjudicated by it. In the circumstances, we are of the view that complaint before this Forum is not maintainable and for its adjudication, complainant be relegated to the civil court. <br /> 10. In the premises written above, complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs. Complainant is at liberty to approach the civil court for getting his grievances redressed if so advised and permitted by law. Copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be consigned.<br /> <br /> Pronounced (Lakhbir Singh)<br /> 7.11.2007 President<br /> <br /> (Hira Lal Kumar)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr.Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member <br /> 'bsg'<br /> <br />