Haryana

StateCommission

A/1087/2016

RAJESH SHARMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE - Opp.Party(s)

VARUN GUPTA

25 Sep 2017

ORDER

 

STAE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

  First Appeal No.1087  of 2016

 Date of Institution:11.11.2016

  Date  of  Decision:25.09.2017

 

Rajesh Sharma proprietor of M/s Ganpati Roadlines, 17/6, Mathura Road, Faridabad (Haryana).

…..Appellant

Versus

 

1.      Oriental Bank of Commerce, Main Branch Neelam Chowk, NIT, Faridabad through its Manager.

2.      IDBI Bank Ltd, SCO-9, Sector 15, Faridabad, through its Manager.

3.      UCO Bank, Shopping cum office complex, Defence Colony, New Delhi, through its Manager.

…..Respondents

 

CORAM:             Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial  Member

                              Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

                   

Present:-    Mr.Varun Gupta, Advocate counsel for the appellant.

                   None for the respondents.

 

                                                 ORDER

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

           

          It was alleged by complainant that he deposited three cheques with opposite party (O.P.) No.1 i.e. Oriental Bank of Commerce on 24.05.2009 but on 01.06.2009 it was told that they were lost in the premises and were not traceable.  A letter was written to him to stop payment. He went to drawer and requested to stop payment. M/s New  Allenbery Works, Faridabad told that cheque No.616568 dated 31.03.2009 issued for Rs.1,16,584/- and cheque No.659017 dated 21.05.2009 for Rs.99,487/- were already cleared from O.P.No.3 i.e.  UCO Bank. It was told that one Ravinder Singh  encashed those cheques from O.P.NO.2 i.e. IDBI Bank.  O.P.No.2 refused to disclose residential address of Ravinder Singh. After obtaining copy of cheque No.616568 it came to the notice that after overwriting Ravinder Singh withdrew the amount. As cheques were encashed in collusion with O.P.Nos.1 to 3 they be directed to pay the amount  of those two cheques i.e. Rs.2,16,071/- besides compensation qua mental harassment etc.

2.      In reply it was alleged by O.P.No.1 that complainant was not consumer as far as it’s case was concerned because no service were obtained from it. As and when complainant came to it, matter was reported to the police and FIR was registered qua the alleged incident. There was no deficiency in service on it’s part.

3.      O.P.No.2 alleged that Ravinder Singh deposited aforesaid cheques for clearance. Apparently those cheques were in order, so they were sent for clearance through electronic transanction system and were cleared by payee bank. The proceeds of those cheques were credited in the relevant account and this dispute was not to it’s knowledge. When this dispute was brought to it’s notice the concerned account was freezed.

4.      In reply O.P.No.3 alleged that information sought by complainant was supplied to him. The cheques were honoured as per guidelines of RBI. Before encashment no information about this dispute was received and they were cleared in routine.

5.      After hearing both the parties learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad (In Short “District Forum”) directed the parties to go to the civil court for adjudication as per opinion of Hon’ble National Commission in UCO Bank Vs. S.D. Wadhawa 2013 (III) CPJ 523 (NC).

6.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom complainant has preferred this appeal.

7.      Arguments heard. File perused.

8       In the present case only this fact is to be decided that  who was negligent. The question of forgery or over-writing is not to be decided. Opinion expressed in UCO Bank (supra) is not applicable in the present dispute because in that matter a person took out seven cheques out of the cheque book of complainant and after forging his signatures withdrew the amount, whereas in the present case issuance of the cheque is not disputed.  These views are fortified by the opinion of Hon’ble National Commission expressed in Sutlej Textile and industries ltd. Vs. Punjab National Bank 2009 (3) CPC 565, M/s Regency Aqua-Electro And Motelresorts Ltd. Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited & Anr. 2016 (2) CLT 96 and  opinion of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dr.J.J.Merchant Vs. Srinath Chaturvedi, 2002) 6 SCC 635.

9.      In these circumstances impugned order dated  01.08.2016 is set aside and the case is remanded back to learned District Forum, Faridabad to decide this complaint on merits.  Parties are directed to appear before District Forum, Faridabad on 06.11.2017. 

 

 

September 25th, 2017      Urvashi Agnihotri                      R.K.Bishnoi,                                                  Member                                    Judicial Member                                           Addl. Bench                              Addl.Bench           

S.K.