Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/14/1100

SMT.PREMLATA - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI BANK - Opp.Party(s)

MS. MONA PALIWAL

21 Dec 2023

ORDER

M. P. STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,                         

                             PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

 

                                      FIRST APPEAL NO. 1100 OF 2014

(Arising out of order dated 26.05.2014 passed in C.C.No.1072/2009 by District Commission, Indore)

 

SMT. PREMLATA,

W/O SHRI PREMDAYAL GUPTA,

R/O 111, SHANTI NIKETAN COLONY,

BEHIND BOMBAY HOSPITAL, INDORE (M.P.)                                          … APPELLANT.

 

Versus

 

BRANCH MANAGER,

ICICI BANK LIMITED,

BRANCH-MALAV PARISAR, A.B.ROAD,

INDORE (M.P.)                                                                                            …. RESPONDENT.   

                     

BEFORE :

            HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI                : ACTING PRESIDENT

            HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY        :          MEMBER      

                    

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

                Ms. Mona Paliwal, learned counsel for the appellant.

           Shri Amit Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent.

 

 O R D E R

(Passed On 21.12.2023)

                                The following order of the Commission was delivered by A. K. Tiwari, Acting President:            

                   This appeal by the complainant/appellant is directed against the order dated 26.05.2014 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Indore (for short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.1072/2009 whereby the complaint filed by the complainant/appellant has been dismissed.

2.                Brief facts of the case are that the complainant/appellant had applied to purchase shares of Gujarat NRE Mineral Resources Limited. The

-2-

said company by allowing her application allotted 10,000 shares @ Rs.5/- per share total Rs.50,000/-. It is submitted that the complainant had given two cheque nos. 038999 & 039000 dated 29.01.2008 of her account number 004101036251 of opposite party bank in favour of Axis Bank i.e. collecting bank of Gujarat NRE Mineral Resources Limited.  On 29.01.2008 she had deposited the amount much more than the cheque amount. However, the Gujarat NRE Mineral Resources Limited vide letter dated 16.05.2008 returned the application to purchase shares along with aforesaid two cheques. Cheque dishonour memo were also sent in which the reason for dishonouring the cheques was shown as alteration in digits of amount mentioned and in date whereas there was no such alteration.  It is alleged that due to non-payment of cheque amount to Gujarat NRE Mineral Resources Limited, she could not get shares of aforesaid company. The complainant therefore filed a complaint before the District Commission alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party-bank seeking relief of Rs.2,50,000/-.

3.                The opposite party-bank resisted the complaint stating that from the cheque nos.038999 & 039000 dated 29.01.2008 it is clear that there is alteration in figures of amount and figures of date. The complainant in place of 29.01.2008 had written 29.01.2009 and thereafter corrected it to make 29.01.2008. Similarly there is alteration in figure 2 of Rs.25,000/-. In such

-3-

case, the cheques were returned to the complainant as per banking rules and guidelines of RBI. Thus there has been no deficiency in service on part of the bank in returning the cheques to the complainant. It is thus prayed that the complaint be dismissed with costs.

4.                We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, grounds of appeal, perused the record of the District Commission and heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties. Also gone through the written arguments filed by the appellant.

5.                Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the District Commission has committed grave error in holding that the bank has not committed any deficiency in service in dishonouring the cheques due to alteration in figures.  The District Commission failed to consider that in both disputed cheques there is difference in only first figure 2 of Rs.25,000/- and that is too small. Except it there is no alteration in the amount mentioned in words. The District Commission failed to consider the provisions of Section 18 of Negotiable Instruments Act wherein it is specifically mentioned that if there is alteration in amount shown in figures, then the amount shown in words will be payable. The District Commission has committed grave error in dismissing the complaint relying on the guide lines of Reserve Bank of India. If there was some alteration in the cheques, the Axis Bank could not

 

-4-

have accepted the same and sent to the opposite party ICICI bank for clearance. Thus it is clear that the Axis bank did not find any alteration in the said cheques. In fact, there was no alteration in the cheques.  She therefore argued that the impugned order deserves to be set-aside.

6.                Learned counsel for the opposite party/respondent supporting the impugned order argued that there is clear alteration in the said cheques and therefore, the bank has not committed any deficiency in service in dishonouring the cheques on the ground of alteration as per banking rules and guidelines of Reserve Bank of India. He argued that the complainant sought relief that for want of dishonour of cheque she could not get shares and suffered huge loss. He argued that the complainant is not a consumer as she raised dispute with regard to shares. He therefore argued that the District Commission has rightly passed the impugned order and this appeal deserves to be dismissed. He placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition No. 3286 of 2016 (Baidyanath Mondal Vs Kanahayalal Rathi & Ors) decided on 29.04.2022.

7.                The complainant has filed her affidavit along with documents P-1 to P-11. On behalf of opposite party/respondent an affidavit of Ali Akbar Mhowwala has been filed.

8.                On going through the record, we find that during the pendency of the appeal, the appellant has moved IA-2 an application dated 26.05.2017

-5-

and IA-3 an application dated 16.01.2023 under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 of CPC along with documents including communication and Director’s report of Gujarat NRE Mineral Resources Limited in order to show that rise of price of shares and due to dishonour of chequest she suffered immense loss. The person involved in trading of shares in order to raise capital and the transaction made therein are commercial activities and such commercial activities are not covered under the explanation given in the definition of ‘consumer’ as defined in Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and therefore, the complainant/appellant is not a consumer. The law on this point is very well settled. Hon’ble National Commission in Baidyanath Mondal (supra) following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund Vs Kartick Das (1994) 4 SCC 224 has clearly held that the complainant is not a consumer with respect to sale and purchase of shares. In view of the above, the applications IA-2 and IA-3 filed along with documents cannot be allowed. Accordingly, the said applications are dismissed.

9.                So far as the question of deficiency in service alleged by the complainant against the bank in dishonouring the cheques as there were alteration in figures is concerned, we have gone through the said cheques P-3 and P-4 and we find that from the naked eye it can be very well seen that there is alteration in first figure (2) of amount shown in figures as

-6-

Rs.25,000/- in both cheques. Similarly, though there is alteration in dates of as 2009 was made as 2008 but this is very minute.  Since there is alteration

is figures of amount shown, the bank has rightly dishonoured the cheques as per banking rules and regulations and guidelines of Reserve Bank of India and while doing so, the bank cannot be held deficient in service.

10.              In view of the aforesaid, we find that the District Commission has considered all the aspects and passed a well-reasoned order and has committed no error while dismissing the complaint. Thus we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order and it is hereby affirmed.

11.              In the result, this appeal being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.

 

                    (A. K. Tiwari)                    (Dr. Srikant Pandey)  

               Acting President                            Member