Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/217/2013

M/s Raghubar Dayal Kailash Chand, - Complainant(s)

Versus

State Bank of India, - Opp.Party(s)

V.K.Arora

10 Mar 2016

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

                                                                                               Complaint No…217  of 2013.

                                                                                               Date of institution: 14.03.2013

                                                                                               Date of decision: 10.03.2016

1. M/s Raghubar Dayal Kailash Chand, Mangatpura, Jagadhri, Tehsil Jagadhri, Distt. Yamuna Nagar, through its Proprietor Sh. Kailash Chand.
2. Kailash Chand Proprietor of M/s raghubar Dayal Kailash Chand, Mangatpura, Jagadhri, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.                                                                                                                                                          …Complainants.

                                    Versus

State Bank of India, Jagadhri, through its Branch Manager.  

                                                                                                                                                                   …Respondent.

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG PRESIDENT,

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present:  Sh. Nitin Arora, Advocate, counsel for complainants.  

               Sh. P.K.Kashyap, Advocate, counsel for respondent.            

 

ORDER

1                      Complainant M/s Raghubar Dayal Kailash Chand has filed the present complaint being “Consumer” under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986 praying therein that the respondent (hereinafter referred as OP Bank) be directed to pay compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment due to dishonour of the cheques in illegal manner. 

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant Firm, are that complainant is  carrying business of Manufacturer and supplier of Aluminum, Bronze, Brass and Stainless Steel Wares at Mangatpura, Jagadhri and the complainant No.2 is its proprietor. The complainant firm is maintaining an account bearing No. 105569323806 with the Op Bank and carrying on its business transaction through Op Bank to earn its livelihood. The complainant firm is maintaining a good reputation in the market regarding its fair trade practice and dealings. It has been further mentioned that there was a balance of Rs. 2,11,353.87 in its account on 22.3.2012 and complainant issued a cheque of Rs. 1,38,919/- dated 22.3.2012 in favour of M/s Dhruv Steels and a cheque of Rs. 62000/- dated 22.3.2012 in favour of M/s Harsh Enterprises i.e. of total amounting to Rs. 2,00,919/- drawn at OP Bank. The said cheques were presented by the concerned firms for encashment through their bankers to the OP Bank from the account of the complainant but the cheques issued in favour of M/s Dhruv Steels and M/s Harsh Enterprises were returned unpaid by the Op Bank alongwith its memo dated 23.3.2012 with the remarks “ Effects not cleared; present again”. The said act of the Op Bank has tarnished the reputation of the complainant in the market and business circle because there was a balance of Rs. 3,54,561.87 on 23.3.2012 with the Op Bank but inspite of these the above cheques were returned unpaid and dishonoured by the Op Bank. Due to the attitude of the Op Bank, the complainant suffered a great mental agony, harassment and loss of reputation in its market. Hence, this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice, OP appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as present complaint is not maintainable, no locus standi, no cause of action, complainant cannot take the benefits at its own wrong and has concealed the true and material facts and on merit it has been stated that on 17.3.2012 there was a credit balance of Rs. 11353.87 in the account of the complainant and thereafter on 21.3.2012 complainant deposited a cheque bearing No. 349769 amounting to Rs. 2,00,000/- in his account, which was to be cleared by the PNB. The said cheque was sent to collection to the said Bank but due to some technical problem in the computer the said cheque could not be cleared  up to 22.3.2012 and as such the same could not be credited in the account of the complainant. The complainant on the basis of said cheque has issued the cheques in dispute, but as the cheque deposited by the complainant could not be deposited in his accounts, so, the said disputed cheques could not be encashed and the same were returned with the reason “ Effects not clear; present again”. The said reason has been mentioned due to the fact as detailed above which is evident from the account statement Annexure R-1. In fact there was no such balance in his account on 22.3.2012. Lastly, it has been stated that as far as the return of the cheques issued by the complainant is concerned in this regard, it is submitted that the said cheques were not dishonoured, however, the same have been returned with remarks “ effects not cleared; present again”. Meaning thereby that, the said cheques would be cleared after clearance of the cheque deposited by the complainant. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP and the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed being devoid of merit.

4.                     To prove his case, complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit as Annexure CX and documents such as Photo copy of account statement as Annexure C-1, Photo copy of cheque of amounting to Rs. 1,38,919/- and Rs. 62,000/- dated 22.3.2012 as Annexure C-2 and C-3, Photo copies of memos of the bank as Annexure C-4 and C-5 and closed his evidence.

5.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OP tendered into evidence affidavit of Baldev Kumar Puri, Branch Manager, State Bank of India as Annexure RX and documents such as Photo copy of statement of account as Annexure R-1, Attested photo copy of register regarding clearance of the cheque as Annexure R-2, Letter for refunding the amount of Rs. 300/- as Annexure R-3 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP Bank.

6                      We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely and carefully. The counsel for the complainant firm reiterated the averments mentioned in the complaint and prayed for its acceptance whereas the counsel for OP reiterated the averments made in the reply and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

7.                     It is not disputed that complainant firm issued two cheques amounting to Rs. 1,38,919/- and Rs. 62,000/- on dated 22.3.2012 in favour of M/s Harsh Enterprises and M/s Dhruv Steels which were presented for clearance from the account of complainant firm bearing No. 10556923806 and the same were returned with the remarks “ effects not clear; present again’ alongwith its memo dated 23.3.2012. The only plea of the complainant firm is that there was a balance of Rs. 2,11,353.87 in the account of the complainant on 22.3.2012 but the official of the Op Bank return the same unpaid which constituted deficiency in service on the part of OPs and caused mental agony and harassment and loss to the reputation of the complainant in the market.

8.                     On the other hand, the version of the OP Bank is that on 17.3.2012 there was a credit balance of Rs. 11,353.87 in the account f the complainant firm and on 21.3.2012 the complainant firm deposited a cheque bearing No. 349769 of Rs. 2,00,000/- in his account which was to be cleared by the PNB and the said cheque could not be cleared up to 22.3.2012 due to some technical problem in computer and as such the same could not be credited in the account of the complainant.

9.                     After hearing both the parties at length we are of the considered view that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP as the cheques in question were not dishonoured by the Op Bank but only returned with the remarks “ Effects not clear; present again”. Meaning thereby that the cheques would be cleared after clearance of the cheque deposited by the complainant. From the perusal of the complaint as well as reply filed by the Op Bank, it is clear that the transaction between the parties are neck to neck i.e. complainant issued cheque on 22.3.2012 in favour of M/s Harsh Enterprises and Dhruv Steels whereas he deposited a cheque of Rs. 2,00,000/- on 21.3.2012 in his account without taking any margin of the days. Moreover, the complainant has failed to file any cogent evidence to prove that at what time i.e. after lunch or before lunch her presented the cheque of Rs. 2,00,000/- on 21.3.2012 in the OP Bank and at what time the cheques in disputes i.e. amounting to Rs. 1,38,919/- and Rs. 62,000/- were presented for clearance in the OP Bank. Even the OP Bank has specifically mentioned in his reply that due to the technical default in the computers, the said cheques could not be cleared up to 22.3.2012 and as such the same could not be credited in the account of the complainant. We have perused the account statement Annexure C-1/R-1, from which, it is clear that the transaction between the parties were neck to neck. Even the complainant has not filed any guidelines or instructions issued by the RBI regarding the time specified for clearance of the cheques from one bank to another bank and in the absence of any guidelines or instructions it cannot be said that bank was duty bound to get the clearance within the same day or the next 2-3 days. As in the present case, it is admitted case of the parties that complainant deposited a cheque of Rs. 2,00,000/- drawn on PNB in his account for clearance on 21.03.2012 and issued from his account two cheques to the another parties on 22.3.2012 which was presented for clearance from the account of the complainant on 22.3.2012. So, these all the transactions have been carried out within 1-3 days i.e. 21.3.2012 to 23.3.2012 which cannot be treated as inordinary delay on the part of the OP Bank. Moreover, the complainant has not leveled or disclosed any ill will of the official of the OP Bank and in the absence of any specific allegations against any officials of the Bank, we are unable to hold that that there was any deficiency in service on the part of OP Bank.

10.                   Further this complaint has been filed by  M/s Raghubar Dayal kailash Chand claiming itself to be a “Consumer” which is also not tenable that the complainant firm falls under the definition of consumer. The term consumer has been defined under section 2(1)(d) of the C.P.Act 1986 which reads as under:

                        “Consumer” means any person who-

(i)                     buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid any partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or

                        (ii)        [ hires or avails of] any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who [hires or avails of] the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person [ but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose]

                        [ Explanation- For the purposes of this clause, “ commercial purpose” does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self- employment]”       

11.                   Since the services of the OP Bank have been availed by the complainant for business/ commercial purposes, its complaint is not maintainable before the Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in view of the provisions of section 2(1)(d)(ii) reproduced above. Although the explanation appended to section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act provides that the “commercial purpose” does not include the services availed by the person exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self employment. However, the above noted explanation restricting the scope of the commercial purpose is of no avail to the complainant because complainant is a body corporate and not a natural person who needs to indulge to earn his livelihood.

12                    In the circumstances noted above, we are of the considered view that complainant failed to prove his case that there is any deficiency in service on the part of OP Bank. Hence, we have no option except to dismiss the complaint.

13.                   Resultantly, we find no merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court. 10.03.2016.

 

 

                                                                                                (ASHOK KUMAR GARG )

                                                                                                PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                (S.C.SHARMA )          

                                                MEMBER