Per Mr. S.R. Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member :
Heard. This appeal takes an exception to the order dated 18.2.2009 respectively passed in consumer complaints No. 405/2008 –Shri Chandrakant Vishnu Yavatkar V/s Arun S. Barge & Others decided by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Satara ( the ‘Forum’ in short). The consumer complaint was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondents for not returning the amount on maturity of the deposit kept with Phaltan Traders Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Phaltan i.e. respondent in the appeal.
2. In this appeal (corresponding to consumer complaint No. 405/2008) this Forum partly allowed the complaint in respect of two deposits but did not grant relief in respect of third deposit of `80,000/- dated 04.03.2006 on the ground that the payment in respect of said deposit was already received by cheques and that mere fact that the cheque was bounced at a later date would not give rise to a consumer dispute.
3. Appellant Chandrakant therefore, filed this appeal for not granting his claim in respect of above referred deposit. This appeal was already admitted and noticed after admission was sent to the respondent but they preferred to remain absent in spite of the service thereof. Heard advocate for appellant.
4. The only point raised before us is that since the cheque was bounced which was given for payment of matured deposit, in effect, said matured deposit remained to be unpaid and therefore, a deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. It is further submitted that remedy under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 being additional remedy, this should be taken as a consumer dispute. We are unable to accept this contention. The Bank had already discharged its liability making the payment of the matured deposit by making payment through cheque. The said cheque was even accepted by the appellant/depositor. Thereafter, even if the cheque was bounced, criminal as well as civil liability would arise in respect of dishonoured cheque and action either civil or criminal under the Negotiable Instrument Act would relate to the events of bouncing of the cheque. The cause of action, in such circumstances would be an event of dishonour of respective cheque and not to the maturity of the respective deposit. Thus, eventuality of dishonouring of the cheque is to be considered independently or separately, than the maturity of the earlier deposit. From this point of view, we find that bouncing of the cheque will not be a consumer dispute and therefore, dismissal of the claim to that extent by the Forum as per impugned order cannot be faulted with. We accordingly hold and pass the following order :
Appeal stands dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs.
Pronounced dated 25th August 2011.
