HYDERABAD.

F.A  1481/2007  against CCSR No. 2239/2006,  Dist. Forum, Ongole   

Between:

1)  N.V.L.S.V. Prasad Rao

S/o. Narasimha Rao

Age: 43 years

D.No. 1/21, Chowdavaram Village

Kondepi Mandal

Prakasham Dist.

2)  Smt. CH. V. Padmalatha

W/o.  Ramu

Age: 36 years,

R/o. 7-4-6, Lawyerpet

Ongole, Prakasham Dist.                            ***                         Appellants/

                                                                                                Complainants.

                                                                   And

1)  The Chief Manager

State Bank of India

Main Branch, Station Road

Ongole, Prakasham Dist.

2)  The Manager

State Bank of India

Main Branch, Station Road

Ongole, Prakasham Dist.                            ***                         Respondents/

                                                                                                Ops.

Counsel for the Appellant:                          M/s. M.V. S. Suresh Kumar

Counsel for the Resps:                               Mr. Narender Reddy

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. APPA RAO, PRESIDENT

&

                                    SRI R.L.NARASIMHA RAO, MEMBER

MONDAY, THIS THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND NINE

Oral Order: (Per Hon’ble Justice D. Appa Rao, President)

                                                          *****

1)                 Appellants are unsuccessful complainants..

2)                 The case of the complainants in brief is that they  started business in tobacco  and supplied the same to  M/s. Green Tobacco  Exports Pvt. Ltd., Pellur.  When they fell due  he filed  O.S. No. 197/2000, O.S. No. 199/2000 and O.S. No. 67/2001  on the file of  Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ongole.    In the said suits  he took summons to  Respondent No. 1 to cause production of  cheque  No. 669889 Dt. 1.5.1997  issued by  M/s. Green Tobacco Exports Pvt. Ltd., Pellur to  M/s. Hind  Enterprises, Guntur, it had informed that the same was not traced.  In fact as per the banking rules,  negotiable instruments have to be preserved for a period of  7 years and  have to be produced as and when required.  When he could not file the cheque the said suits were dismissed solely on the ground of non-production of said cheque.    The respondents committed acts of deficiency in service by not producing the cheque.  Therefore they claimed compensation.    

3)                The Dist. Forum returned the complaint at the thresh-hold alleging that there was no consumer relationship between the parties and it required full-fledged trial by the Civil Court. 

4)                Aggrieved by the said order, the complainants preferred this appeal contending that when the cheque was misplaced  it amounts to deficiency in service,  and therefore the question of matter to be adjudicated by  a  Civil Court  will not arise. 

5)                The point that arises for consideration is whether the order of the Dist. Forum is vitiated by mis-appreciation of fact or law?

6)                It is an undisputed fact  when the complainant sought for the cheque which said  to have been issued by a third party,  the bank pleaded that it had misplaced  and lost.   The complainant alleges that  for a period of 7 years the negotiable instruments have to be preserved and misplacing or losing the cheque  would amount to deficiency in service.    The question of relegating the matter to a Civil Court  will not arise.    We may state herein that  the Supreme Court in  Dr. Merchant Vs. Srinath Chaturvedi reported in III (2002) CPJ 8 (SC)  has deprecated the practise of relegating it to  Civil Court  when basically the Dist. Forum has jurisdiction  to try the case.    At any rate, even without hearing  the opposite party the Dist. Forum  could not have returned the complaint with a direction to  file before the  Civil Court.   Whether there was a  consumer relationship  between the parties or not can be  looked into,  if the evidence is let in.  It is too premature to come to such a conclusion.   In the circumstances, we set-aside the order of the Dist. Forum.

7)                In the result the appeal is allowed setting aside the order of the Dist. Forum Dt. 14.12.2006 .   The Dist. Forum is directed to register the complaint, issue notice to the opposite parties inviting written version,  and proceed according to law.    In the circumstances no costs.

1)       _______________________________

PRESIDENT                 

2)      ________________________________

 MEMBER          

                             Dt.  14. 12. 2009.

*pnr

“ UPLOAD – O.K.”