Delhi

West Delhi

CC/09/780

AMARJIT TAIWAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE - Opp.Party(s)

29 May 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

150-151; COMMUNINTY CENTER ; C-BLOCK; JANAK PURI; NEW DELHI

CASE NO. 780/2009

 

Shri Amarjeet Tiwal

R/o 66, Pocket 12 Sector -20,

Rohini,

Delhi-110086                                                        ..…. Complainant

VERSUS

 

Oriental  Bank of Commerce

Through  its Branch  Manager

Branch  at:- Vishal Enclave, Rajouri Garden,

New Delhi                                                                …..Opposite Party

 

 

O R D E R

 

K.S. MOHI, PRESIDENT

 

The complainant has filed the present complaint against the O.P under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The facts as alleged in the complaint are that the complainant is a regular customer  of OP Bank  of  and   maintaining  current account bearing the 04192110011093 the complainant   deposited the cheque bearing  No. 150266 dated 05.09.2008 for the  sum of Rs 3,00,000/- ( Rupees  Three  Lacs only) drawn on  State Bank of Paliala, Piyarli, Shimla.  It is a case of complainant that since September 2008 he was regularly visiting the OP Bank to know the status  of the said cheque but the bank officials were avoiding  to give  any concrete answer.  Finally on 18.11.2008 the complainant was shocked to see that the bank officials  had crossed  all limits   and instead of releasing the amount or correcting their mistake  they have deducted a sum of             Rs. 1050/- towards  VPL charges for State Bank  of Patiala, from the account of complainant  in the name of  transaction in respect of said misplaced cheque. OP   dishonestly misappropriated the cheque of the complainant.   The complainant sent legal notice to OP  but  of   no avail.  Hence the present complaint   with the prayer  for direction to OP  to reimburse the cheque  amount of Rs 3,00,000/- with interest @24% from due date September 2008 and compensation.

2.     OP filed reply with the preliminary objection that this court has no jurisdiction to entertain  and adjudicate because  the complainant is not a  consumer under Section 2(i)(d).  On merits it is admitted that complainant was holding bank account with OP.  The OP had sent  cheque in question by a registered post for clearing  but the same  was returned  unpaid  on 18.08.2008.  After receiving the unpaid cheque  the OP  dispatched  the said cheque  to the complainant  at the address mentioned in the account as per the record of the bank in its  usual course of practice.  It has been  further sated that the cheque in question  was returned on 18.08.2008  as unpaid   and the amount  towards VPL  charges were rightly deducted  from the account of complainant.  Hence there is no deficiency on the part of the complainant should be dismissed.   

3.     Complainant has filed his affidavit affirming the facts alleged in the complaint.  He also mentioned documents Exb  as CW 1/B to B/2 in support of his submission.  On the other hand Sh. Deepak Banka, Senior Manager,  Oriental Bank of Commerce filed affidavit of evidence on behalf of OP. He also mentioned document Ex-RW1/1 in support of his submission.    Parties have also filed their respective written submissions.

4.     We have   heard the counsel for parties and perused the record.

5.      It is not in dispute that cheque in question was deposited by Complainant  with OP bank for realization.   However the plea of OP is that said cheque was sent for realization to the concerned bank at Shimla which was received back unpaid and accordingly the same was sent at the  address of complainant available in the bank .  The OP  had placed on record the photocopy of  dak dispatch register according to which the cheque was sent to the complaint at his address i.e. 522, Pocket-6 Sector -22, Rohini.  The postal receipt has also been  annexed with this dak register.  The complainant has denied the receipt of cheque  at his  Rohini address  because he had  shifted from that place.  Unfortunately the complainant has not placed on record any application given to OP for change of his address.  The OP  Bank  sent the cheque to complainant at his address which was available  with  it  .  It was the duty of complainant to inform the  bank  if he had  shifted from the address mentioned in the Bank account of OP but this had not been done by the complainant.  From the record and the discussion stated above we conclude that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the part of the OP.  Besides this the complaint is not maintainable in the present for because as admitted by the complainant in the complaint itself  that he was holding the current account with the  OP.  It is now the well settled law that the case pertaining to deficiency in current account cannot be entertained by  Consumer Fora.  This was so held by the National Commission in Consumer Case No 95/2006 case title M/s Anand  Nishikawa  Company Ltd. CEO Vs  State Bank Patiala decided on  12.09.2014.   

6.     Keeping in view  the discussion stated above  we are of the considered view that  there is no merit in the complaint and accordingly it is  dismissed. No order as to cost.  

Copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules.

File be consigned to the record room. 

Announced this___29TH___ day of    May___ 2019.

 

( K.S. MOHI )                                                   (PUNEET LAMBA)                      PRESIDENT                                                              MEMBER