Date of Filing:14.09.2007<br /> Date of Order: 28.01.2008<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> Dated: 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2008<br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri. BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 1924 OF 2007 <br /> <br /> Ambe Traders,<br /> Mo.13 & 14, Basement,<br /> Sharma Complex,<br /> Bangalore-560 053,<br /> Represented by its Proprietor,<br /> Manoj Kumar Solanki. Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> HDFC Bank Limited,<br /> Having its Regional Office at<br /> 25/1, Shankar Narayan Building,<br /> M.G. Road, Bangalore-1,<br /> Represented by its Branch Manager.<br /> <br /> Also having Branch at:<br /> <br /> Cauvery Bhavan, Bangalore,<br /> Represented by its Branch Manager. Opposite Party<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> This complaint is filed U/Sec. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.<br /> The facts of the case are that, the complainant is carrying business of Textile. The representative of the opposite party Bank approached the complainant to open current account with EDC Machine with zero rental. The complainant issued cheque for Rs.40,000/- on 19/12/2003 and another cheque was issued on 31/1/2004 for Rs.10,000/-. The complainant issued cheque for Rs.100/- to open current account. The complainant wrote a letter to opposite party to provide EDC Machine with zero rentals. Complainant lodged a complaint to RBI on 10/10/2005, but the opposite party on 30/10/2005 returned the payment of Rs.104/- by way of Manager’s cheque and submitted that opposite party will not be able to provide EDC Machine with zero rental. The opposite party returned the amount only after complaint lodged to RBI. Hence, the complainant alleges that there was deficiency in service and sought for compensation. <br /> <br /> 2. Notice was issued to opposite party by registered post. Notice was served. The opposite party has not appeared and remained absent. Affidavit evidence of complainant is filed. Arguments are heard.<br /> 3. The points for consideration are:-<br /> 1. Whether there was a deficiency of service <br /> on the part of the opposite party? <br /> <br /> 2. Whether the complaint is in time?<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> 4. I have gone through the complaint. Admittedly, as per the case of the complainant he has paid Rs. 100/- through cheque on 20/7/2004 towards EDC terminal. It is the case of the complainant that, the opposite party had assured him that EDC Machine will be provided to him free of rent. But the complainant has not produced any agreement or any documents to show that the opposite party had assured or agreed to provide EDC Machine free of rent. The opposite party Bank had issued letter to the complainant that EDC Machine will not be provided with zero rental and the customer has to sign the agreement form. But in this case the complainant has not signed the agreement form. He has not produced any records or documents to show that EDC Machine will be provided with zero rentals. So under these circumstances, the question of deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party does not arise. Admittedly, the opposite party had returned amount of Rs.100/- with interest and the complainant has accepted the same. Therefore, there is absolutely no cause of action to the complainant to file the present complaint. Admittedly, the complainant has given a cheque for Rs.100/- on 20/7/2004 and he has filed complaint on 13/09/2007 i,e., more than two years after the issue of cheque. Therefore, the complaint is time barred. The cause of action for the complainant arose on 20/7/2004 the date on which he had paid Rs.100/-. Therefore, the complaint having been not filed within two years is time barred. On this point also the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Even on merits also there is absolutely no cause for the complainant. The complainant has not proved by producing any documents or agreement or banking rules and regulations to show that EDC Machine will be provided to the business man free of rent. So under these circumstances, the complaint is not maintainable. In the result, we proceed to pass the following:- <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 5. The complaint is dismissed. No costs. <br /> 6. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> <br /> 7. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2008.<br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br />