Punjab

Sangrur

CC/512/2017

Tarun Kumar Ahuja - Complainant(s)

Versus

Oriental Bank of Commerce - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Sirjiwan Jain

08 Mar 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                         

                                                Complaint No.    512

                                                Instituted on:      03.10.2017

                                                Decided on:       08.03.2018

 

Tarun Kumar Ahuja son of Amir Chand Ahuja, resident of H.No.128, Near Ram Mandir, Patiala Gate, Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.             Oriental Bank of Commerce, through its Cluster Head, The Mall Road, Chhoti Barandari, Patiala.

2.             Oriental Bank of Commerce, through its Branch Manager, outside Sunami Gate, Sangrur.

3.             Canara Bank through its Managing Director. (notice not issued).

4.             Canara Bank, Branch Patiala Gate, Opposite Pursharthi Ram Lila Ground, Sangrur through its Branch Manager.

                                                        ..Opposite parties.

 

 

For the complainant    :       Shri Parvesh Kumar Khera, Adv.

For Opp.Party No.1&2:       Shri Parmod Saxena, Adv.

For OP No.4              :       Exparte.

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

               

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Tarun Kumar Ahuja, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant is maintaining a saving bank account number 035392191020079 with the OP number 2 and the complainant got issued cheques from the OP number 2.  The grievance of the complainant is that he issued cheque number 592497 dated 5.8.2017 for Rs.3000/- to one Lalita Ahuja for discharging his legal liability and the same was presented by Lalita Ahuja with his bank i.e. the OP number 4 for encashment, but the OP number 2 returned the said cheque with the remarks “other reason-cheque not issued” on 11.8.2017.  Further case of the complainant is that Lalita Ahuja sent a legal notice under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, due to dishonour of the cheque.  Further case of the complainant is that the Ops number 1 and 2 are deficient by returning the cheque, whereas sufficient balance was there in his account.  Though the complainant approached the OPs number 1 and 2  number of times, but of no avail. Thus, alleging  deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to pay to the complainant the amount of Rs.30,000/- on account of damages for mental torture agony and harassment and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             Record shows that the OP number 4 was proceeded against exparte.

 

3.             In reply filed by OP number 1, it is admitted that the complainant is a consumer of the Ops as he is having a saving account with it.  It is also admitted that the complainant issued a cheque for Rs.3000/- to one Lalita Ahuja and when she  presented the cheque for clearing and the same was returned with the remarks “cheque not issued’ but, the remaining allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto. It is stated that the complainant got issued only two loose cheques from the Ops and the same are only for cash withdrawal on the date of issuance only and not for the purpose of clearing/transfer. The same was also explained at the time of issuance of the cheques to the complainant.  It is stated that the Ops have rightly dishonoured the cheque in question.  The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-5 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP number 1 and 2 has produced Ex.OP1&2/1 to Ex.OP1&2/3 copies of documents and closed evidence.

 

 

5.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and evidence produced on the file and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits dismissal, for these reasons.

 

 

6.             At the outset, it is an admitted fact of the complainant as well as the OPs number 1 and 2 that the complainant is having a saving bank account with it.  It is also an admitted fact that the complainant got issued loose cheques.  In the present case, the learned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently that the complainant issued cheque number 592497 dated 5.8.2017 to one Lalita Ahuja, and when the same was presented by her to the bank for clearance, then the same was dishonoured by the Op number 2 with the remarks ‘Other reason- cheque not issued”.  On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 1 and 2 has contended vehemently that the cheque has rightly been dishonoured as the complainant had got issued two loose cheques, which could be used for withdrawing the payment on the same date and the same could not be issued to the other party. We may mention that a bare perusal of the cheque Ex.C-2 itself shows that the same was “loose cheque” as the same is printed on it by the OP bank.  Further this averment is supported by the clause 3.5.3 of the Operational Manual 31.3.2010, a copy of which on record is Ex.OP1&2/2, which provides that “loose cheque should be used on the date of issuance and that too for withdrawal of cash only and not for the purpose of clearing/transfer.”. In the circumstances, it is proved on record that the complainant could use the loose cheque in question only for withdrawal of cash and not for the purpose of clearing/transfer of funds to the other account.  As such, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant has failed to establish his case by producing cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence on record.

 

 

7.             In view of our above discussion, we dismiss the complaint of the complainant. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                        Pronounced.

                        March 8, 2018.

 

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                                President

 

                                                             

                                       

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member

 

 

 

                                                        (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                                   Member