DATE OF FILING: 18.7.2013
DATE OF DISPOSAL: 21.4.2016
Dr. N. Tuna Sahu, Member:
Deficiency in service against the Opposite Party (for short O.P) is the grievance of the complainant in this consumer complaint.
2. The case of the complainant in short is that the O.P. issued the cheque bearing No.043189 on 24.10.2011 for Rs.55,000/- drawn in favour of the complainant to be collected from Axis Bank Ltd. The complainant deposited the said cheque in the Central Bank of India for collection and the Axis Bank Ltd returned the cheque in question “stating funds insufficient”. The complainant intimated the same to the O.P. over phone who requested for resubmission and accordingly the cheque No. 43189 for Rs.55,000/- was again deposited on 3.4.2012 in Central Bank of India at Berhampur for collection which was again returned back stating funds insufficient. The complainant issued one legal notice through his Advocate to the Opposite Party on 21.4.2012 duly received by the O.P. on 2.5.2015 but he remained silent without any compliance. In such a situation, the complainant filed the present dispute for redressal and on being noticed by this Forum, the O.P. did not took any steps to appear in this Forum to reply, for which notice was issued through paper publication in Anupam Bharat, the Odiya daily newspaper on 19.1.2014 but all went in vain. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.P., the complainant filed this case with a prayer to direct the O.P. to pay Rs.55,000/- along with 15% interest from 24.10.2011, Rs.30,000/- towards compensation for harassment and mental agony and Rs.5000/- towards the cost of litigation in the best interest of justice.
3. Notice was issued against the O.P. but he intentionally neither chooses to appeaser nor filed any written version. Hence the O.P. was declared ex-parte on 22.01.2014.
4. On the date of final hearing the case was heard ex-parte. We heard the case from learned counsel for the complainant at length and have also gone through the case in detail, perused the documents filed by the complainant. During hearing of the matter the learned counsel for the complainant argued that the O.P. issued the cheque bearing No.043189 dated 24.10.2011 for Rs.55,000/- drawn in favour of the complainant to be collected from Axis Bank Ltd. The complainant deposited the said cheque in the Central Bank of India for collection and the AXIS Bank Ltd but the bank returned the cheque in question “stating funds insufficient”. The complainant intimated the same to the O.P. over phone who requested for resubmission and accordingly the cheque No.043189 for Rs.55,000/- was again deposited on 3.4.2012 in Central Bank of India at Berhampur branch for collection which was again returned back stating ‘funds insufficient’. The complainant issued one legal notice through his Advocate to the O.P. on 21.4.2012 duly received by the O.P. on 2.5.2015 but the O.P. remained silent. As the O.P. did not take any steps, notice was issued through paper publication in Odiya daily newspaper “Anupam Bharat” on 19.1.2014 but all went in vain. The learned counsel for the complainant also cited a decision of Hon’ble National Commission in support of his case reported in 2010 CJ 1084 (NC).
5. We have gone through the above pleadings of the learned counsel for the complainant and verified the vital documents on record. From the above submission it appears that it is purely a “cheque bounce case” and the complainant is neither a consumer under the O.P. and nor the present O.P. is a service provider. The complainant has not purchased any goods for consideration nor hired services of the O.P. The complainant, prima facie in this case is not a consumer under the present O.P. In our considered view, the complainant has preferred a wrong Forum to redress his grievance. This Forum has been established for adjudication of consumer disputes and this Forum has got no jurisdiction to encroach upon the jurisdiction of either civil or criminal courts. The fact of the present case squarely comes under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act 1881. Hence, the case of the complainant is not maintainable in this Forum due to devoid of any merit. However the complainant is at liberty to redress his grievance before the competent court to recover the amount from the O.P. During the course of hearing of the matter, we have also gone through the citation filed by learned counsel for the complainant and found that the citation is not relevant hence not applicable to the present case.
6. In the result, we dismiss the complaint of the complainant due to devoid of any merit. The case of the complainant is disposed of accordingly.
7. The order is pronounced on this 21st day of April 2016 under the signature and seal of this Forum. The office is directed to issue copies of the order to the parties free of cost.
