CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X

GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI

Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel)

New Delhi – 110 016

Case No.854/2007

M/S INFINITY ADVERTISING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,

D-4/2 OKHLA INDUSTRIAL AREA, PHASE-1,

NEW DELHI-110020

THROUGH ITS ACCOUNTS MANAGER SH. B.S. MODI             

…………. COMPLAINANT                                                                                     

VS.

HDFC BANK LTD.,

KALKAJI NEW DELHI BRANCH,

THROUGH ITS BRANCH MANAGER

      …………..RESPONDENT

                                                                                             Date of Order:05.01.2018

O R D E R

A.S. Yadav – President

The complainant is a private limited company incorporated under the Companies Act.  The case of the complainant is that M/s Uppal Towers Private Limited, Dehradun owed huge amount to the complainant.  In order to make part payment they issued their cheques including cheque bearing No.651535 dated 11.01.2007 for Rs.3,00,000/- drawn on Punjab & Sind Bank, Dehradun, in favour of the complainant.  The said cheque was sent by the complainant through its banker i.e. OP for clearance.  Usually it takes ten days to collect proceeds.  In this case when months together proceeds were not credited, the complainant started writing letters and reminders to OP but OP kept mum.  When pressurized, OP vide letter dated 31.05.2007 informed about the dishonour of the cheque and alongwith that, letter dated 30.05.2007 of Punjab & Sind Bank was also annexed.  It is submitted that Punjab & Sind Bank, Dehradun and alleged courier agency, both are unknown to the complainant nor there is any privity of contract with them.  The complainant is consumer being customer of OP who is paid commission charges for service rendered by it to the complainant, because the complainant is having proper Account bearing No.2718020 0000 19.  The cheque was not got traced by the OP bank, as a result the complainant has suffered a loss of Rs. 3 lakhs.  The complainant has prayed for compensation and litigation expenses.

OP in reply took the plea that there was no deficiency in service on their part.  Immediately on the presentation of the cheque, the same was presented to the bank on which it was drawn.  OP bank was informed by Punjab & Sind Bank, Dehradun, that the cheque stands dishonoured on account of insufficient funds on 10.04.2007.  The intimation was duly given to the complainant vide letter dated 31.05.2007 and also non payment certificate was provided to the complainant just to facilitate the complainant either to get the duplicate cheque or to recover the amount of the same from the drawer.  It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

We have gone through the case file carefully.

It is significant to note that OP immediately sent the cheque for clearance to Punjab & Sind Bank.  However, the said cheque was dishonoured on 10.04.2007 and was returned by the paying banker to the local branch of OP at Dehradun.  The cheque was duly dispatched by local branch of OP, however, the same was lost by the courier agency in transit from Dehradun to Delhi. 

It is an admitted fact that vide letter dated 31.05.07 OP bank has duly informed the complainant about the dishonouring of the cheque on account of insufficient fund on 10.04.2007 and further informed that the cheque has been lost by the courier agency.  Alongwith letter dated 31.05.2007, OP also annexed letter dated 30.05.047 issued by Punjab & Sind Bank which clearly shows that the cheque was dishonoured on account of insufficient funds.  On the face of it, there was no deficiency in service on the part of OP bank.  In fact the complainant has not suffered any financial loss as the cheque was dishonorued by the Punjab & Sind Bank on account of insufficient fund.  The intimation of same was duly given.  The complainant could have taken action against M/s Uppal Towers Private Limited, Dehradun.  The complainant has stated that it has sent numerous letters to OP but not a single letter has been placed on record.

Moreover the complainant is not a consumer as the complainant is a private limited company indulged in commercial activities.  During the course of commercial activities, the cheque was received by the complainant from M/s Uppal Towers Private Limited, Dehradun and that cheque was presented to OP Bank for clearance.  It was a commercial transaction hence the complainant is not a consumer.  For the aforesaid reasons, the complaint is dismissed.

Copy of order be sent to the parties, free of cost, and thereafter file be consigned to record room.

    (RITU GARODIA)                                                      (A.S. YADAV)

               MEMBER                                                                 PRESIDENT