State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sh. Raman Sanjta. vs Uco Bank. & Ors. on 18 July, 2022
H. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION SHIMLA
First Appeal No. : 288/2019
Date of Presentation : 22.08.2019
Order Reserved on : 12.07.2019
Date of Order : 18.07.2022
......
Sh. Raman Sanjta, S/o Sh. Balbir Singh Sanjta, R/O Village Sajar,
PO Pujarli No.4, Tehsil Rohru, District Shimla and Sai Bhawan,
Balyani Estate, near Sanjay Gandhi School, Patyog, New Shimla
...... Appellant/Complainant.
Versus
1. UCO Bank Branch Baghi, Tehsil Kotkhai, District Shimla
through its Branch Manager
2. State Bank of India (SBI) earlier State Bank of Patiala, Branch
Pujrali No.4, Tehsil Rohru, District Shimla, through its Branch
manager
3. Sh. Harikrishan Lal Baldev Rai through its Partner, B-214,
New Sabzi Mandi, Azadpur, Delhi-110033
......Respondents/Opposite parties
Coram
Hon'ble Justice Inder Singh Mehta, President
Hon'ble Ms. Sunita Sharma, Member
Hon'ble Mr. R.K. Verma, Member
Whether approved for reporting?1Yes
For Appellant: Ms. Poonam Gehlot, Advocate.
For Respondent No.1: Ms. Jyoti Chauhan, Advocate vice
Mr. Sanjay Dalmia, Advocate
For Respondent No.2: Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate vice
Mr. Ashish Jamalta, Advocate
For Respondent No.3: None
1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order?
Raman Sanjta versus UCO Bank and others
(F.A No.288/2019)
Justice Inder Singh Mehta, President
ORDER
Instant appeal is arising from order dated 10.04.2019 passed by learned District Forum Shimla, in Consumer Complaint No.165/2012 titled Sh. Raman Sanjta versus UCO Bank and others.
Brief facts of Case:
2. Briefly, the case of the complainant is that, he is having account No.55140722223 with opposite party No.1. He is an orchardist and has been receiving payment of sale proceeds of the apples through various wholesale commission agents into his aforesaid bank account. Partner of opposite party No.3, who is a wholesale commission agent had purchased number of consignments from the complainant.
During such transactions, he issued two post dated cheques bearing No.88470 amounting to Rs. 1,52,767/- and 885037 amounting to Rs.63,470/- drawn on the account of opposite party No.3 maintained with opposite party No. No.2.
According to the complainant, the said cheques were presented by him after due date in his account maintained with opposite party No.1. The said cheques were sent by opposite party No.1 to opposite party No.2 for payment, but the 2 Raman Sanjta versus UCO Bank and others (F.A No.288/2019) amount of cheques was not remitted. Requests were made to opposite party No.1 either to remit the amount into his account or to return the cheques so that action can be taken for recovery of the amount from opposite party No.3 under the Negotiable Instruments Act, but of no avail. Later on, he came to know that the cheques were not received by opposite party No.2. Accordingly, the complainant requested opposite party No.3 to issue fresh cheques, but he refused. He has been put to loss by the opposite party No.1. Such act and conduct of the opposite party No.1 amount to deficiency in service.
3. The complaint was contested by the opposite party No.1 by filing reply. It is admitted that the complainant was having saving account with opposite party No.1. It is admitted that opposite party No.1 had written letter to opposite party No.2 in respect of non-receipt of cheques and pleaded that opposite party No.1 further marked stop payment in their system for precaution and to avoid wrongful payment of cheques. The cheques in question were not presented before the opposite party No.1 by the complainant for encashment. Rest of the averments have been denied.
3
Raman Sanjta versus UCO Bank and others (F.A No.288/2019)
4. Opposite parties No.2 and 3 did not appear before the Learned Forum below and were consequently proceeded against exparte.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the complainant and opposite party No.1, the learned District Forum, below dismissed the complaint of the complainant.
6. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Ld. District Forum, the appellant/complainant has filed the present appeal before this Commission.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the entire record carefully and scanned the written arguments filed on behalf of respondent No.2.
8. Learned counsel of the appellant has submitted that appellant's cheques were lost/mis-placed by the respondents No.1 and 2 in transit. The said cheques were issued by the respondent No.3 in lieu of some payment. The said cheques were lost during transit and appellant could not receive the amount of cheques till date and the respondent No.3 has refused to issue other cheques and due to this, there is deficiency in service on the part of the respondents No.1 and 4 Raman Sanjta versus UCO Bank and others (F.A No.288/2019) 2 and the appellant is entitled to the amount of cheques. She further submitted that cheque of UCO Bank issued by the respondent No.3 was deposited with the SBI Rohru and when SBI forwarded the said cheque to respondent No.1, it got mis- placed.
9. On other hand, learned counsel of the respondent No.1 has submitted that the complainant has failed to prove that there was saving bank account maintained by him with the respondent No.1. She further submitted that respondent No.1 has not received any cheque for clearance deposited by the appellant.
10. Learned counsel of the respondent No.2 has submitted written submission filed on behalf of respondent No.2 be read for the purpose of arguments.
FINDINGS
11. Appellant is claiming the amount on the basis of cheque amount on the ground that the respondent/opposite party No.3 Sh. Hari Singh is not issuing fresh cheques.
12. Since the appellant is claiming the amount on the basis of cheque amount which is recoverable in nature. The amount in question is recoverable in nature from the 5 Raman Sanjta versus UCO Bank and others (F.A No.288/2019) respondent/opposite party No.3 Sh. Harikrishan and for the recovery of the said amount; a civil suit can be filed before a competent court of Civil Jurisdiction either at New Delhi or at the place where the cheques were handed over to the complainant.
13. For the existence of right of recovery of the cheque amount against the respondent No.3 Sh. Harikrishan, determining the same amount to be the claimed amount is not proper and justified.
14. Annexure C-1 is pay-in-slip relied upon by the appellant/complainant himself. Perusal thereof depicts that the cheque bearing No.884740 amounting to Rs.1,52,767/- was deposited by the complainant in his account bearing No.55140722223 with opposite party No.2 and not with opposite party No.1. In the complaint, the appellant had not sought any relief against the respondent No.2.
15. So far as cheque No.885037 amounting to Rs.63,470/- is concerned, the complainant has not placed on record any receipt or pay-in-slip regarding deposit of second cheque with opposite party No.1. The plea of the appellant/complainant that he had deposited two post dated cheques for encashment with opposite party No.1 is not 6 Raman Sanjta versus UCO Bank and others (F.A No.288/2019) substantiated by any cogent and convincing evidence. Therefore, question of deficiency in service does not arise at all.
16. We have gone through the order passed by the learned Forum below which is well reasoned and does not call for any interference by this Commission. Therefore, the same is upheld. The appeal of the appellant fails. No order as to costs
17. Certified copy of this order be sent to District Forum below and file of State Commission be consigned to record room after due completion. Certified copy of order be sent to the parties and their counsel(s) strictly as per rules. Pending applications, if any, also disposed of.
Justice Inder Singh Mehta President Sunita Sharma Member R.K. Verma Member 18.07.2022 *Pkw* 7