Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/230/2021

Ajay Kumar Sharma S/o P.L. Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Indian Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Tosif Solanki

21 Sep 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE RAJASTHAN STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JAIPUR

 

FIRST APPEAL NO:230/2021

 

Ajay Kumar Sharma s/o P.L.Sharma Prop. Sharma Construction r/o Plot No. 76/21-A, Shipra Path, Mansarovar, Jaipur

Vs.

Indian Bank through Br.Manager, Br. Office Mansarovar, Jaipur

 

Date of Order 21.9.2021

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Banwari Lal Sharma-President

Hon'ble Mrs. Shobha Singh -Member

 

Mr.Tosif Solanki learned counsel for the appellant

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BANWARI LAL SHARMA, PRESIDENT ):

 

Heard on application for condonation of delay and on

2

 

admission.

 

Considering the facts mentioned in the application seeking condonation of delay u/s 5 of the Limitation Act and arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant Mr.Tosif Solanki and specially considering the covid-19 pandemic situation, the delay of 5 days in filing this appeal is condoned.

 

Present appeal is preferred by the appellant Ajay Kumar Sharma assailing the impugned judgment dated 27.1.2021 passed by the learned DCC Jaipur 2^nd Jaipur in Complaint Case No. 325/2016 ) (Ajay Kumar Sharma Vs. Indian Bank) whereby the learned DCC dismissed the complaint.

 

Mr.Tosif Solanki learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant complainant submits that subject cheque was issued by complainant to one Champa Lal wherein the name of drawer and the column of amount in figures was left blank while the column of amount in words was filled as “ one lakh fifteen thousand only” but the cheque was presented by one Ram Swaroop and his name was filled in blank column and the amount was also filled as “1,50,000/-” and the bank encashed

3

 

the cheque of Rs. 1,50,000/- while complainant appellant issued cheque for Rs. 1,15,000/- only which is clear cut deficiency of service on the part of drawee bank. Without considering all these facts learned DCC wrongly dismissed the complaint therefore, this appeal may be admitted.

 

We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and went through the impugned judgment.

 

From perusal of the impugned judgment and arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant it reveals that signature on the cheque is admitted by the complainant who is account holder of the bank and the date of cheque is 5.2.2013 while the complaint was filed on 1.2.2016 which is after more than two years while the limitation for filing complaint before the DCC is only two years therefore, the complaint is barred by limitation.

 

Apart from it the person who received the amount and to whom according to complainant cheque was given has not been impleaded as party. Not only this learned counsel shows us the photo copy of the cheque. From perusal of cheque it

4

 

reveals that writing of person in whose favour cheque was issued and the amount in words written seems to be of the same person therefore, s.20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act comes in play which clearly states that if account holder who issued cheque admits his signatures and admits that he has given the cheque then it is presumed that he authorises the person to whom the cheque was given to fill up the columns for which the person, whose account the cheque is given with his signatures is bound by the entry made by the person who received the cheque.

 

Considering all these facts this appeal devoid merits which is hereby dismissed summarily at admission stage.

 

(Shobha Singh) (Banwari Lal Sharma)

Member President

 

 

nm