Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/16/1558

KASHIRAM SAHU - Complainant(s)

Versus

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK - Opp.Party(s)

SH.J.P.KHARE

24 Apr 2017

ORDER

M. P. STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,                         

                             PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

                                         

                                 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1558 OF 2016

(Arising out of order dated 09.09.2016 passed in C.C.No. 97/2015 by District Forum, Narsinghpur)

 

KASHIRAM SAHU,

S/O SHRI ROSHANLAL SAHU,

R/O BEHIND UNIQUE TRADERS, ITWARA BAZAR,

KANDELI, TEHSIL-NARSINGHPUR

DISTRICT-NARSINGHPUR.                                                         ...        APPELLANT.

 

                      Versus

 

1. MANAGER,

    PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK,

    BRANCH-NARSINGHPUR.

 

2. ZONAL MANAGER, (MANDAL PRABANDHAK)

    PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK,

    NAPIER TOWN, JABALPUR.               .                                …       RESPONDENTS     

                      

                                                                          

BEFORE :

            HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAKESH SAKSENA    :     PRESIDENT

            HON’BLE SHRI SUBHASH JAIN                           :     MEMBER

            HON’BLE SHRI S. D. AGARWAL                          :      MEMBER

                     

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

            Shri Somendra Saxena, learned counsel for the appellant.

         

                                             O R D E R

                                         (Passed On  24.04. 2017)

                   The following order of the Commission was delivered by Shri Subhash Jain, Member:

         

                   The complainant/appellant has filed this appeal against the order dated 09.09.2016 passed in C.C.No.97/2015 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Narsinghpur whereby his complaint has been allowed.

2.                     Facts of the case in short are that the complainant is an agent of LIC since 1998.  On 08.05.2011 when he was going to Kahani from Narsinghpur on his motor cycle he lost his bag containing insurance papers, cheque receipts and some signed and blank cheques of which report was lodged on 30.05.2011 and on 30.05.2011 he had given in writing to respondent no.1 giving details of cheque books and cheques.  He had also given details of a cheque book containint cheque nos. 768581 to 768590.  On the basis of his written information respondent no.1 stopped payment and had taken stop payment charges to the tune of Rs.2700/-.  It is alleged that one Mr. Vijay Gupta on

-2-

17.12.2012 had presented a cheque no. 768582 for Rs.2,10,000/- for encashment before respondent no.1 bank. The bank returned the cheque with endorsement “insufficient funds”. On the basis of dishonor of cheque Vijay Gupta had filed a complaint against him under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.  For want of not mentioning stop payment he could not prove his case and he was punished with one year imprisonment and compensation Rs.4,00,000/-.  It is further alleged that the bank while not mentioning stop payment instead of insufficient funds committed deficiency in service.  He therefore filed a complaint before the Forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties/respondents and claiming compensation.   

3.                     The opposite party / respondents bank resisted the complaint stating that on the instructions of the complainant/appellant regarding stop payment no payment regarding any cheque was made to anyone.  When the cheque no. 768582 was presented for encashment before the bank, since there were no sufficient funds in the account of the appellant, it was dishonoured in a routine manner with endorsement “insufficient funds”, thus the bank has not committed any deficiency in service.  For the punishment given by the court, the bank was nowhere responsible as at the time of dishonor of cheque there was no sufficient funds in the account of the appellant.  

4.                     The District Forum after appreciation of evidence on record though found that the bank has not made any payment to anyone on the instructions of the appellant, but partly allowed the complaint and directed the respondent bank to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation, Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental pain and Rs.2000/- as cost of the proceedings.  The complainant preferred this appeal for enhancement of compensation.

 5.                    We have heard learned counsel for appellant on admission and gone through the material available on record. 

6.                     Learned counsel for the complainant/appellant reiterated the same facts that the bank instead of mentioning ‘stop payment’ dishonoured the cheque with endorsement ‘insufficient funds’ and while doing so the bank has committed deficiency in service.  He further argued that because of this Act of the bank the appellant could not prove his case before the criminal trial and was punished with imprisonment and compensation.

7.                     After hearing counsel for appellant and on minutely going through the material available on record we find that the complainant/appellant failed to prove that

-3-

the bank has committed any deficiency in service while dishonouring the cheque.  It is true that he had given instructions to the bank regarding ‘stop payment’ but there is nothing on record to show that despite his instructions the bank has paid any amount to anyone. The appellant also failed to prove that at the time when the dispute cheque was presented, he was having sufficient funds and the bank had wrongly endorsed ‘insufficient funds.’  The case of the appellant is only that instead of endorsing ‘stop payment’ the bank dishonoured the cheque with endorsement ‘insufficient funds’ and on account of this he was punished but the District Forum in paragraph 12 of the order has specifically mentioned that the appellant got sufficient opportunity to lead evidence in criminal proceedings and his story regarding lost of cheques was found false.  Even after such circumstances, the District Forum has partly allowed his complaint and grant him relief by way of compensation Rs.10,000/- & Rs.5,000/- and Rs.2000/- as cost of the proceedings which is more than enough.

8.                     In such circumstances, in view of the above discussion we find that despite having no case, the appellant has been compensated adequately and we do not find any ground to enhance the same.  Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant/complainant being devoid of merit and substance is dismissed at the admission stage.