PER MR SUBHASH CHANDRA

1.     This appeal under section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the ‘Act’) seeks a review of the order dated 09.04.2014 of the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Chhattisgarh, Raipur (in short, the ‘State Commission’) in complaint case no yCC/12/11 of 2015 dismissing the complaint with liberty to approach a civil court for recovery of loss, if any, on account of the respondent not having acted on purported instructions to stop payment of cheques of the appellant. 

2.     The facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellant held a Savings Bank Account No. 20020967699 with the Risali Branch, Maroda Utai of the respondent Bank. The appellant states that despite specific instructions to the respondent Bank vide letters dated 22.05.2011 and 15.12.2011 to stop payment of cheques, the respondent did not act as per the said instructions and cleared  four cheques amounting to Rs 49,00,000/-, which included cheque no. 622976 for Rs 21,50,000/-, cheque no. 622975 for Rs 25,50,000/- on 24.05.2012 and cheque no. 622973 for Rs.2,00,000/- on 26.05.2012. This is stated by the appellant to have been done by the respondent despite having debited Rs 50/- towards such instructions on 15.12.2010 and not permitting withdrawal (by withdrawal form) a sum of Rs 50,000/- by the appellant on 22.06.2012 by the respondent which was permitted only subsequently on 03.07.2012 upon a formal request dated 23.06.2012 withdrawing the stop payment directions. The appellant approached the State Commission by way of a complaint alleging deficiency in service which came to be decided on contest vide the impugned order. The State Commission has held that:

“The complainant has not been able to prove that the OP/Bank has received instructions from the complainant for stop payment of cheques and cheques were submitted by the complainant or through his munim (clerk) Raj Kumar Singh with the OP/Bank and the OP/Bank cleared the cheques. Therefore, it cannot be said that the OP/Bank has committed any deficiency in service. The OP/Bank cannot be held liable to compensate the complainant. If any loss was suffered by the complainant, then the complainant is at liberty to file civil suit for recovery of the amount of cheques.” 

3.     This order is impugned on the grounds that (i) the order does not set out reasons for accepting the contention of the respondent/Bank in allowing payment of Rs 49,00,000/- through cheque nos. 622976 and 622975 on 24.05.2012 and cheque no. 622973 0n 26.05.2012 despite instructions by him to stop payment before and after these withdrawals; (ii) the letter dated 23.06.2012 was issued for withdrawing the ban on payments was not considered while clearing payments between 24.05.2012 to 26.05.2012; (iii)  the State Commission had erred in placing the onus of proof for the letter on the appellant; (iv) the State Commission erred in not considering the xeroxed copy of the letter dated 22.05.2012 issued by the appellant although the facts of it were confirmed by his letter dated 09.06.2012 contrary to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in V. Kishan Rao Vs. Nikhil Super Speciality Hospital & Anr. decided on 08.03.2010; (v) and the impugned order erred in not considering that though the ban on payments was lifted only on 03.07.2012, there were no other instructions on record other than those dated 15.12.2011. The appellant is before us with the following prayer:

The appellant complainant fervently craves for justice and most humbly prays to the Hon’ble Commission that his above submission be heard sympathetically and necessary order quashing the impugned order dated 09.04.2014 passed to allow the appeal in view of the facts and law of the case and in the interest of justice and for that favour the appellant swears to ever remain grateful to it.

4.     We have heard the learned counsel for the respondent and given thoughtful consideration to the material on record. The Counsel for the appellant remained unrepresented despite notice. It was noted that Appeal was dismissed twice for non-prosecution. Short synopsis of arguments filed by the appellant were taken as his final submissions.

5.     From the facts of this case and the submissions made, it is evident that the appellant conveyed instructions to the respondent Bank on more than one occasion for stopping payment of cheques issued. However, the letter dated 22.05.2011 stated by him to have been sent to the respondent is not on record. No stamped and signed acknowledgement of the same has also been brought on record by the appellant. The receipt of this letter has been denied by the respondent. The State Commission did not admit the unacknowledged copy of this letter as evidence under the Evidence Act in view of the opposition of the respondent.

6.     Appellant relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CCI Chambers Cooperative Housing Society Limited Vs. Development Credit Bank Limited in Civil Appeal No. 7228 of 2001 decided on 29.08.2003 to contend that the State Commission erred in not deciding a matter of unfair trade practice and relegating the matter to a civil court. Reliance was also placed on this Commission’s order in Central Bank of India Vs. Byu Hazarika in RP No. 1820 of 2002 dated 05.12.2002 to argue that the issue squarely fell under a banking dispute in view of fraudulent withdrawal constituting an unfair trade practice.

7.     Per contra, it was submitted on behalf of the respondent that the appeal was misplaced as there were no instructions on the date the cheques were presented at its branch to stop payments. The letter dated 22.05.2011 stated to have been sent to the bank by the appellant is denied having been received by the respondent. It is therefore argued that in the absence of any specific instructions to the contrary, the cheques issued by the appellant were duly encashed by it. The respondent also submits that there was no charge for the stop payment instructions on this date that was debited from the appellant’s account which corroborates its stand. It is therefore argued that there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part and hence the State Commission has rightly held that the appellant approach a civil court to seek its remedies if any.

8.     From the foregoing it is manifest that the appellant’s case for deficiency in service by the respondent in failing to adhere by its instructions rests upon its purported directions to the respondent on 22.05.2011. However, it has failed to substantiate the fact of this direction by way of any written communication to the respondent. The respondent has denied having received any such instruction. The appellant has not been able to establish the veracity of his assertion by proving that it issued instructions even on the basis of any deduction of service charges by the bank towards stop payment directions for which the respondent charges Rs 50/- per instruction as is evident from the passbook details pertaining to SB Account No. 20020967699 filed by the appellant as per which it is evident that deductions were made on several occasions on the basis of the appellant’s instructions to this effect. The assertion of the appellant that it had issued instructions to stop payment which were disregarded by the respondent and therefore constitute deficiency in service or an unfair trade practice cannot therefore be accepted as it is not supported by any documentary or even circumstantial evidence. Reliance placed by the appellant on CCI Chambers Cooperative Housing Society Limited (supra) and on Byu Hazarika (supra) are of no avail to him since he has failed to bring the fundamental document relied upon on record. On the contrary, the respondent has demonstrated that there is neither any record nor any evidence to support such a contention.

9.     In view of the foregoing discussion, we do not find merit in the appeal which warrants our interference in the matter. The appeal is dismissed as without merit with no order as to costs. Pending IAs, if any, also stand disposed of with this order.