State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Harinder Singh vs State Bank Of India on 30 June, 2015
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.506 of 2015
Date of institution : 13.05.2015
Date of decision : 30.06.2015
Harinder Singh Dhall, aged 67 years son of Mohinder Singh, resident
of H.No.304-C, Model Town Extension, Ludhiana.
.......Appellant-Complainant
Versus
State Bank of India Branch, Model Town Extension, Ludhiana.
........Respondent-Opposite Party
First Appeal against the order dated
31.3.2015 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh, President
Shri Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member
Present:-
For the appellant :Shri Harinder Singh Dhall (In Person) JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH, PRESIDENT :
This appeal has been preferred by Harinder Singh Dhall, complainant/appellant against the order dated 31.3.2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana (in short, "District Forum"), vide which the complaint filed by him under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") was dismissed as not maintainable, barred by time and jurisdiction.
2. The complaint was filed by him against State Bank of India- opposite party. He alleged therein that he was having current account No.30614490096 with the opposite party and was having business dealings with one M/s Aurom Infocomm Ltd., Amritsar (hereinafter to be referred to as "the Company"). He issued one First Appeal No.506 of 2015 2 cheque No.260390 dated 3.11.2010 for Rs.1,50,000/- in favour of the Company. The amount of that cheque was paid by the opposite party to another person; named, Purtosh. He moved a complaint dated 25.6.2012 before the Branch Manager when he came to know about the fraudulent payment, while settling the account with the Company. He sent the reminder dated 9.4.2014 to the opposite party. The matter was investigated by Deepak Sharma, Chief Manager, who held that he has been compensated by the Company by paying Rs.2,20,000/-, including the cheque amount of Rs.1,50,000/-. In fact, the said amount of Rs.2,20,000/- was paid to him by the Company for some other transaction and a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- is still pending against the Bank. One FIR was also got registered against Purtosh, who was the Representative of the Company. In-spite of the fact that he repeatedly approached the Bank for receiving the amount of the said cheque, nothing has been done. He was informed, vide letter dated 23.9.2014, that the amount of the cheque would not be paid to him.
3. The District Forum at the stage of admission of the complaint dealt with the question of limitation and came to the conclusion that the complaint had been filed after three years of the accrual of the cause of action and, as such, was barred by time. After recording that finding the complaint was dismissed as not maintainable and barred by time and jurisdiction, vide aforesaid order. The District Forum in para no.3 of the order mentioned that the complainant had got the knowledge regarding the fraudulent payment of the amount of the cheque while settling the account with the Company on First Appeal No.506 of 2015 3 25.6.2012 and the complaint having been filed after the expiry of two years was barred by limitation. The complainant/appellant appeared in person and tried to contend that his dispute was with the Bank/opposite party and it refused to pay the amount of the cheque, vide letter dated 23.9.2014 and, as such, the period of limitation was to be computed from that date.
4. It may be so, but the other question to be decided is, whether the complainant had any cause of action to file the complaint? He annexed the letter dated 23.9.2014 with the grounds of appeal as Annexure A-2. It is mentioned in that letter that as per the Award dated 11.6.2012 of the Arbitrator, he received the sum of Rs.2,20,000/-, as full and final settlement of all the dues against the Company, including the amount of the cheque in dispute and which is alleged to have been got encashed at Ludhiana by misrepresentation. In order to clarify the position, the complainant was asked to place on record the award of the Arbitrator. That Award dated 11.6.2012 has been produced by him.
5. A perusal of the Award shows that he lodged a claim of Rs.6,60,000/- against the Company, in which he also alleged that the amount of the cheque of Rs.1,50,000/- issued by him in favour of the Company had not been accounted for in their books of accounts. The Arbitrator, vide said award and in view of the mutual settlement, allowed the sum of Rs.2,20,000/- towards full and final settlement of his claim and on the payment of that claim the Company was to stand discharged of its liability.
First Appeal No.506 of 2015 4
6. It becomes very much clear from this Award that it was the Company, which was claiming Rs.1,50,000/-, for which the complainant had issued the cheque and the complainant agreed to forego that amount after the full and final settlement reached at. The subject-matter of the complaint was also the subject-matter of the claim preferred before the Arbitrator, who heard and finally decided the same. It stands proved that the complainant already exhausted his remedy before the Arbitrator. It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Haryana Urban Development Authority and another v. Satish Hans" 2009 (4) RCR (Civil) 175 that where a consumer avails the other remedy available to him, he cannot thereafter move the Fora under the Act. Therefore, the complaint filed by the complainant before the District Forum was not at all maintainable. There is no ground to admit this appeal to be heard on merits and the same is hereby dismissed in limine.
(JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH) PRESIDENT (BALDEV SINGH SEKHON) MEMBER June 30, 2015 Bansal