Per Mr. Narendra Kawde, Hob’ble Member :
This appeal taken an exception to the order dated 17.1.2009 in consumer complaint No. 176/2008, Shrirang Unit No. 14, Sahakari Griha Nirman Sanstha Ltd. V/s The Branch Manager, UCO Bank, Thane passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thane (‘the Forum’ in short). The District Forum has partly allowed the complaint and ordered to pay `5000/- as compensation and `3000/- as cost of litigation. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant has preferred this appeal.
2. The case in brief is that the complainant/respondent society is having S.B. Account No. 15134 with the appellant bank. The complainant/respondent society issued cheque No. 51538 for `11,203/- to Shri Vijay Shinde on 26.3.2008 on account of payments against the work done. The said cheque was not honoured by the appellant bank as the warrant of attachment under section 180-181 of Maharashtra Land Revenew Code, 1966 issued by Tahsildar, Thane on 19.3.2008 thereby prohibiting to discharge the sum under the resondent’s/complainant’s account was issued. It is contended by the respondent/complainant society that they are the reputed entity in Thane and though sufficient amount was available in their account, the appellant bank has failed to honour the cheque issued in favour of Mr. Vijay Shinde. Aggrieved with the dishonour of the cheque by the appellant bank, respondent/complainant filed consumer complaint before the District Forum alleging deficiency on the part of appellant bank. The consumer complaint was partly allowed against the appellant bank. Aggrieved and dis-satisfied with the impugned order of the District Forum, the appellant bank has preferred this appeal. At the time of hearing on 21.12.2011, Ld. Counsel for appellant was present. However, respondent or their counsel was absent. 3. Heard Ld. Counsel for the appellant. Perused the record. Tahsildar, Thane issued the order addressing to the appellant bank to discharge the sum of `44,83,609/-payable to the Corporation on account of arrears of non-agricultural assessment dues. The said order was issued under the provision of section 180-181 of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 for recovery of dues as arrears of land revenue. The said order was served on the appellant bank on 24.3.2008. The cheque in question was issued by the respondent/complainant society on 26.3.2008.
4. The contention of the respondent/complainant society is that since it is a large complex consisting of about more than 700 members, the said society was bifurcated in units by the order of Dy. Registrar and order of the Tahsildar attaching their account was mis-conceived identity. However, there is no record to show that the respondent/complainant society was not under obligation to pay the Govt. dues as arrears of land revenue from the said account which was frozen under the orders of Tahsildar, Thane. The appellant Bank was under the obligation to comply the order and report compliance to the Tahsildar of the said attachment order especially when the said order was served on appellant bank prior to issue or cheque. The appellant Bank has rightly acted promptly on the orders of the Tahsildar and did not honour the cheque issued by the respondent/complainant society.
5. The Forum below has observed wrongly held that there is a privity of contract between the appellant bank and respondent society and therefore, the appellant bank was under the obligations to honour the cheque issued by the respondent/complainant society. However, recovery of the Govt. dues as the first charge, the appellant bank acted prudently and not honoured the cheque issued by the respondent/complainant society vis-à-vis order of the Tahsildar, Thane. We do not find any fault in the action of the appellant bank in dishonouring the cheque and bank cannot be held for rendering any deficiency in service as erroneously held by the District Forum. We hold accordingly and pass the following order :
O R D E R
Appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 17.1.2009 passed by the District Forum, Thane is quashed and set aside. Parties to bear their own cost.
Pronounced dated 21st December 2011.
