The Complainant-Petitioner has filed this Revision Petition against the order dated 21^st July, 2006 passed by the State  Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar (for short – State Commission) in Appeal No.450/2005 whereby and whereunder the State Commission has confirmed the order dated 21.7.2005  passed by the  District Consumer Disputes  Forum (for short- District Forum), Munger in Complaint No.50/2003.

Facts:

            Petitioner has a  Cash Credit Account with the Respondent Bank.  On 7^th January, 2002 Petitioner purchased Demand Draft No.1/01/02/580317 for Rs.40,000/- in favour of Birla Corporation  Ltd,  Durgapur Cement Works and  another  Demand Draft  of Rs.80,000/- on 10^th January, 2002 in the name of  M/s. Mangia Hitech Pvt. Ltd., Giridih, from the Respondent – Bank.     The brother of the Respondent who was in possession of the said  Demand Drafts, while on his way to   Giridih/Durgapur on 13.1.2002, was kidnapped by the miscreants  at pistol point and taken to Durgapur in a car where he was confined in a room.   Allegedly,  the  miscreants  snatched both the Drafts from the Petitioner’s brother  and obtained his signatures on different revenue stamp papers.  On 15^th January, 2002 the  Petitioner’s brother managed to  escape  from the custody of miscreants and returned back to his house.  

Petitioner  in order to prevent illegal payment to other persons on 18.1.2002  gave a letter to the Branch Manager of the Respondent   Bank to stop payment and on  receiving the communication,  Branch Manager – Respondent  sent information to Giridih and Durgapur Branch of UCO Bank to stop the payment.  After getting confirmation that the payment has not been made by the Giridih Branch and  Durgapur Branch and after obtaining  indemnity  bond, the Respondent-Bank credited the sum of Rs.1,20,000/- in the account of the Petitioner.    Later on the  Petitioner came to know that the Respondent  had debited the sum of Rs.40,000/- from  the account of  the Petitioner and started charging interest because in the meanwhile  Demand Draft of Rs.580317  in the sum of Rs.40,000/-  had been encahsed.

Petitioner filed a complaint  before the District Forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent -Bank, seeking the following relief:

“It is, therefore, prayed that your honour may kindly be pleased to admit this complaint, issue notice to the Opposite Party and after hearing the parties be further pleased to declare that the complainant was not at all liable to pay the amount of aforesaid demand draft worth Rs.40,000/- and it is further prayed that the complainant be exempted to pay Rs.40,000/- with interest which has been debited from his cash credit account.”

          Respondent, after notice, put in appearance and filed its written statement  alleging therein that the complaint filed by the Petitioner was not maintainable  as the relief claimed in the complaint could not be given under the Consumer Protection Act.  The main defense of the  Respondent was that the complaint suffers from non-joinder of necessary parties, such as  UCO Bank Branch Manager, Durgapur, M/s. Durgapur Cement Works, Sone Lal Sah, brother of the complainant who  was carrying the drafts in question.   It was pleaded  that the Respondent had issued  duplicate  Demand Drafts  on the basis of the indemnity  bond submitted by the Petitioner   in which the Petitioner mentioned  wrong   number of  Demand Draft  for Rs.40,000/- as 580321 instead of  580317  and  accordingly the Respondent  informed  its Branch at Giridih / Durgapur.  It was  contended that  the   Demand Draft No.580317 was encashed due to the wrong  number given by the Petitioner in the indemnity bond and not  because of any deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent-Bank.   

          The District Forum came to the conclusion that the  Demand Draft  No.580317 in the sum of Rs.40,000/- was got encashed  due to the mistake on the part of the Petitioner  and not  because of the mistake or deficiency in service of the Respondent.     Petitioner  had wrongly mentioned the number of Draft  as 580321 instead of 580317   due to which Draft  of Rs.40,000/-  was got encashed.   It was also held that  relief claimed by the Petitioner was beyond the purview of the Consumer Fora.  That the complainant had not sought any compensation from the Respondent on account of deficiency in service or supply of defective goods.  That the relief claimed was    declaration and injunction which could only be granted  by the Civil Court and not by the Consumer Fora. 

          Being aggrieved, petitioner filed an Appeal before the State Commission, which has been dismissed by the impugned Order. Now, the Petitioner has  filed the present  revision petition.

          Counsel for the parties have been heard at length.  

We have gone through the orders passed by the Fora  below as well as the evidence which has been produced before the District Forum.   It has not been disputed  by the counsel for the  Petitioner  that  Petitioner has mentioned number of Draft as 580321 instead of 580317 in the indemnity bond.   On the basis of the information supplied by the Petitioner, the Respondent-Bank had informed its Branch at Durgapur that Draft No.580321 be not encashed.   As the wrong number of Draft had been conveyed  to the Durgapur Branch,  the Demand  Draft No.580317, in the sum of Rs.40,000/- was encashed.             From the perusal of the record, it is clear that   mistake  was  of the Petitioner and not that of the Respondent. On the basis of the information furnished by  Petitioner in the indemnity Bond,  the Respondent had conveyed  its Durgapur Branch to stop the payment of Demand Draft No.580321.   The Draft was encashed not because of the mistake of the Respondent  but it happened due to the mistake on the part of the Petitioner.    In the facts and circumstances of the case, we agree with the view taken by the Fora below that there was no negligence or deficiency in service on the part  of the Respondent. 

The object of the Consumer Protection Act is to provide speedy and simple  redressal to the consumer disputes  relating to deficiency in service  or supply of defective goods. The Consumer Fora  are courts of limited jurisdiction.   The Petitioner has not alleged any deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent.  Relief for declaration  and injunction, can only be   granted  by the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction and not the Consumer Fora functioning within the framework of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.   We endorse the findings  recorded by the Fora below  that the complaint filed by the Complainant was not maintainable.

          For the reasons stated above, the  Revision Petition is dismissed with no order as to costs leaving it open to the Petitioner to file a suit for appropriate relief by approaching  the Civil Court along with an  Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Section 14 of the Limitation Act,   to exclude the period spent in prosecuting the proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act, while computing the period of limitation prescribed for such a suit   as has been held by the Supreme Court  in  Laxmi Engineering Works vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute – (1995)3 SCC 583.