Date of Filing – 11.08.2014

Date of Hearing – 02.03.2017

            The assail in this appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) is to the Judgement/Final Order dated 23.05.2014 made by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, South 24 Parganas at Alipore (for short, Ld. District Forum) in Consumer Complaint no.522/2013 whereby the consumer complaint initiated by the Appellant under Section 12 of the Act was dismissed on contest without any order as to costs.

          The Appellant herein being Complainant lodged the complaint asserting that he has a current account with Central Bank of India, Paikpara, Village- Paikpara, P.O.-Uttar Raipur, Dist- South 24 Parganas being A/C No.3247719319 in the name of Orient Engineering Works.  On 16.05.2013 he issued a bearer cheque of Rs.2,00,000/- to one Sri Jagannath Gupta.  The representative of Sri Gupta went to Central Bank of India, Paikpara Branch for collection of the money but he did not find the above address of Paikpara Branch and as such returned to his office without drawal of the money.  The Complainant alleged that due to such deficiency on the part of the Bank, he has lost the order and had to pay Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for breach of contract to Sri Jagannath Gupta.  In this regard, the communications made by the Complainant to the Bank yielded no result.  Hence, the Appellant approached the Ld. District Forum with prayer for several reliefs, viz- (a) Rs.50,000/- as compensation paid by him to his customer; (b) Rs.2,00,000/- for loss of business and loss of goodwill; (c) Rs.2,00,000/- for mental agony and heart attack charges; (d) Rs.20,000/- as lawyer’s fee and (e) Rs.30,000/- for travelling, fooding and lodging aggregating Rs.5,00,000/-.

          The Respondent nos. 1 & 2 being Opposite Party nos. 1 & 2 by filing a written version have stated that despite having full knowledge about the shifting of the Paikpara Branch of the Bank to a new premises at Shympur Bazar four years back, the Complainant with an ulterior motive given the earlier address of the Paikpara Branch of the OP in the petition of complaint and has made false affirmation in this regard. 

          The Respondent no.3 being OP no.3 (Reserve Bank of India) by filing a separate written version has stated that they are in no way connected with the matter and as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed against them.

          After evaluation of the materials on record, the Ld. District Forum by the impugned order dismissed the complaint, which prompted the Complainant to prefer this appeal.

          Having heard the Ld. Advocates for the Appellant and Respondent nos. 1 & 2 and on going through the materials on record, it would reveal that the Appellant being proprietor of Orient Engineering Works opened a current account with the Central Bank of India being A/C No.3247719319 on 30.03.2013.  Before that, the Appellant opened one savings bank account being A/C No.3236307171 on 12.02.2013 in the said branch of the bank.  Both the accounts were opened in Central Bank of India, Paikpara Branch, where the Bank has been functioning long before opening of the accounts by the Appellant.  In fact, about four years back from the date of opening of the account, the Paikpara Branch of the Bank was shifted to a new premises at Shyampur Bazar.  Therefore, the Appellant had no occasion to misdirected himself in understanding the place where the branch is located.

          The Ld. District Forum after making an indepth study of the evidence available with the record has rightly observed – “at the time of issuing the cheque i.e. dated 16.05.2013, it was very much within the knowledge of the Complainant as to where the bank is situated.  Moreover, it is not necessary that the full address of the bank is required to be written in the cheque.....”.

          In all fairness, the Appellant should have impleaded Sri Jagannath Gupta to whom he issued the bearer cheque.  It is important to note that the said Jagannath did not personally visit the branch and it is not stated in the petition of complaint who else visited the branch on behalf of the said Jagannath.  The Appellant has also failed to produce any scrap of paper that he had business transaction with Sri Jagannath Gupta for which Jagannath Gupta has agreed to deal business with the Complainant/Appellant.  The Appellant has also miserably failed to produce any document that on account of such act, he had to make payment of a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the said Jagannath Gupta. 

          On evaluation of materials of record, it appears to me that the Ld. District Forum should have dismissed the complaint with exemplary costs because a Consumer Forum cannot be allowed to be an instrument for unjust enrichment.  Despite the observation of the Ld. District Forum, the Complainant unnecessarily has come up in this Commission with this frivolous appeal and as such the appeal should be dismissed with exemplary cost of Rs.25,000/- to be paid by the Appellant Sri Sital Chandra Das being Proprietor of Orient Engineering Works in the account of State Consumer Welfare Fund of this Commission.

          In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed on contest with cost of Rs.25,000/- to be paid by the Appellant Sri Sital Chandra Das being Proprietor of Orient Engineering Works in the account of State Consumer Welfare Fund of this Commission.

          The impugned Judgement/Final Order is hereby affirmed.

          The Registrar of the Commission is directed to send a copy of this order to the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, South 24 Parganas at Alipore (now at Baruipore) for information.