Complainant takes no step.  The OP No.1 files hazira and one written statement by way of affidavit in respect of the cheque in question. 

Complainant is absent on repeated calls.  Record reveals that the complainant was absent on previous date without any step.

Heard the ld advocate of the OP No.1 bank. 

Perused the written statement, photocopy of the disputed cheque and the case record.

On perusal of the written statement as well as report of the Treasury Officer, Siliguri Treasury-I dated 15.11.2017 together with the photocopy of the disputed cheque enclosed herewith, it appears that the disputed cheque bearing No.241146 dated 22.08.2014 amounting Rs.11,890/- was issued by the Treasury Officer, Siliguri Treasury–I in favour of the Joint Block Development Officer, Matigara and the cheque was duly deposited to the OP bank and the OP No.1 after making payment in favour of the Joint BDO, Matigara (who received the cheque amount on 29.10.2014) sent the cheque to Reserve Bank of India, Kolkata as per Govt. rules.  The photocopy of the disputed cheque furnished on the side of the OP No.1 also disclosed that the disputed cheque was issued in the name of the Joint BDO, Matigara by the Treasury Officer, Siliguri Treasury–I.  So, it cannot be held by any stretch of imagination that the disputed cheque was issued by the Treasury Officer, Siliguri Treasury–I in the name of the complainant. 

The complainant has filed the instant case claiming that the alleged cheque was issued in his name which is nothing but a concocted story. 

From the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that the complainant is not a ‘consumer’ within the meaning under Section 2 (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and he has no locus standi to file the present case.

Hence, it is

                   O R D E R E D

that the Consumer Case No.66/S/2017 is dismissed being not maintainable .

Let a copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.