Delhi

StateCommission

A/10/626

ICICI BANK LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SURESH CHANDRA GUPTA - Opp.Party(s)

22 Aug 2016

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

                                              Date of Arguments: 22.08.2016

     Date of Decision: 31.08.2016

 

Appeal No. 626/10

In the matter of:

Manager

ICICI Bank Limited

H-2, Green Park Extension

New Delhi-110 016.                                                       Appellant

 

 

Versus

 

       

Suresh Chandra Gupta

24301,Ist Floor Hardhiyan Singh Road,

Karol Bagh, New Delhi-5                                                        Respondent

 

 

CORAM

 

 

 

O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

 

1. Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment? 

 

•  

 

  2.      To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes    

 

 

 

JUDGEMENT

 

            The OP has filed present appeal against order dated 25.03.09 passed by District Consumer Forum in complaint No. 433/07 allowing the complaint and directing the appellant to pay the market price of 2300 shares @ 49 per share which was the market price of the share amounting to Rs. 1,12,700/-.  This was done so as cheque dated 24.12.06 for Rs. 57,500/- in favour of Lakshmi Villas Bank Ltd. for purchase of 2300 shares @ 25/- per share was returned unpaid by the appellant and the respondent was deprived of his right of issue of several number of shares.

2. Briefly stated the case filed  by the respondent was that on 13.01.07 he was having  credit balance of Rs. 1,74,979/- in his saving account maintained by him with the appellant. Still the appellant dishonoured the cheque for Rs. 57,500/- drawn by him in favour of Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd.
3. The respondent filed a written statement pleading that the complaint was not a consumer.  The respondent deposited two cheques for total amount of Rs. 1,12,500/- for inward transaction in his account which could not be cleared till evening of 12.01.07 and  that is why the cheque of the respondent was returned.  The respondent concealed that he lodged three other instruments for Rs. 800/-, Rs. 980/- and Rs. 57,500/- and the balance amount as on 12.01.07 was not sufficient to honour all the said three instruments.
4. The District Forum found that as per statement of account filed by the respondent  he had a credit balance of Rs. 1,76,983.08 and there was sufficient balance to honour the cheque in question.
5. In appeal the grievance of the appellant is that clear balance in the account of the respondent was Rs. 24,483/-.  The cheque deposited by the complainant  for clearing could not be cleared upto evening of 12.01.07 and even upto 11.30 a.m. of 13.01.07.
6. I have gone through the material on record and heard the arguments. During the argument. The Manager of the bank produced a statement showing that on 20,12.06 the respondent had blocked Rs. 40,000/- for online trading.  His balance was reduced by said amount and thus appellant bank was justified in dishonouring the cheque.
7. The son of the respondent who appeared in person disputed the said blocking of the amount and submitted that appellant had come with the said plea for the first time.
8. The Manager of the appellant bank submitted that statement was computer generated and it contains other entries of blocking made on account of equity allocation in the past as well as in the future which goes to show that respondent was in the habit of blocking the amount in that fashion.
9. I find considerable force in the plea of the appellant bank.  The appellant is maintaining its books of accounts in accordance with banker’s Books Evidence Act which carries the presumption of genuineness. There is no reason to  disbelieve the said statement of account filed by appellant bank.
10. It is not the case of respondent that Bank is enemical to respondent.  So there is no scope for holding that appellant prepared wrong statement.
11. Still further the statement produced by appellant contains entries of unblocking/deallocation in future on 25.01.07, 29.01.07, 30.01.07, 31.01.07.  These entries lead to inference that respondent was in habit of blocking and unblocking of amount for equity allocation.
12. The respondent submitted that bank has not produced any document of blocking.  I n case of online transaction there is no document.  Order is placed through internet.
13. Moreover, the respondent  has claimed  loss on account of non-allocation of shares to him due to dishonouring of the cheque in question. In Morgain Stanley Mutual Fund vs.  Kartik Das II (1994) CPJ 7 b Hon’ble Supreme Court held that till allocation of shares, they do not exist and cannot be called goods, perspective buyer cannot be called consumer.  The same view is being followed till date.  Recently in Nagaraj Narain Kati vs. ICC Ltd. I (2014) CPJ 481 National Commission took the same view.
14. In view of the above decision, the appeal succeeds and is accepted. The impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.
15. Copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.

 

16. One copy of the order be sent to District Forum for information.

 

 

 

 (O.P.GUPTA)

MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

sbm