State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Rahul Gupta vs Punjab National Bank on 25 September, 2023
Daily Order M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL FIRST APPEAL NO. 201 OF 2018 (Arising out of order dated 11.07.2018 passed in C.C.No.65/2017 by the District Commission, Damoh) RAHUL GUPTA, S/O SHRI MUNNALAL GUPTA, R/O HINDORIA, TEHSIL & DISTRICT-DAMOH (M.P.) ... APPELLANT. Versus 1. BRANCH MANAGER, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, BRANCH-BANDAKPUR, TEHSIL & DISTRICT-DAMOH (M.P.) 2. BRANCH MANAGER, ICICI BANK, BRANCH-SEMRI HARCHAND, TEHSIL -SOHAGPUR, DISTRICT-DAMOH (M.P.) 3. KAPIL RAO S/O SHRI MADHUKAR RAO, R/O NEAR RAILWAY STATION, GURAMKHEDI, VILLAGE-SEMRI HARCHAND, TEHSIL-SOHAGPUR, DISTRICT-DAMOH (M.P.) ... RESPONDENTS. BEFORE : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHANTANU S. KEMKAR : PRESIDENT HON'BLE DR. (MRS) MONIKA MALIK : MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :
Shri Manish Nema, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Sunil Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent no.1.
Shri Amit Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent no.2.
None for the respondent no.3.
O R D E R (Passed on 25.09.2023) The following order of the Commission was delivered by Dr.(Mrs) Monika Malik, Member:
This appeal by the complainant/appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'appellant') is against the order dated 11.07.2018 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Damoh (For short -2- 'District Commission') in C.C.No.65/2017 whereby the District Commission has dismissed the complaint filed by him.
2. Briefly put, facts of the case are such that the appellant is having savings bank account no.1318000100083041 with the opposite party no.1/respondent no.1-Punjab National Bank (hereinafter referred to as 'PNB'). The opposite party no.3 on 25.09.2016 had issued a cheque no. 00512 for a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- The appellant presented the said cheque in PNB for clearance on 23.12.2016 but the same was not cleared. The appellant, alleging deficiency in service against the opposite party no.1 and 2 in not clearing the said cheque filed a complaint before the District Commission, seeking relief.
3. The opposite party no.1-PNB resisted the complaint on the ground that the cheque dated 25.09.2016 had validity of three months. The appellant had presented the said cheque on 23.12.2016 at 15:30 hrs, the time of which was specified on the deposit slip. 24.12.2016 and 25.12.2016 were bank holidays and this fact was in the knowledge of the appellant but despite that the appellant forcefully presented the said cheque. The cheques which are presented in the branch of opposite party no.1-PNB are taken for post up till 2.00pm. Therefore, the appellant's cheque which was presented on 23.12.2016 at 15:30 hrs in the given circumstances could not be taken for post, same day. Thereafter, on the next working day i.e. on -3- 26.12.2016 the cheque was sent by registered post to Damoh branch of PNB, which was later sent for clearance to Damoh branch of ICICI bank and was returned back with endorsement 'instrument outdated'. The appellant himself is responsible for non-clearance of cheque and the opposite party no.1-PNB is nowhere responsible in the matter. There has been no deficiency in service on part of the opposite party no.1-PNB.
4. The opposite party no.2-ICICI bank in its reply submitted that the cheque presented by the appellant was received by them on 30.12.2016. The validity period of three months was specified on the said cheque. Since the said cheque was presented after its validity had expired, it could not be honored. There is no deficiency in service on part of the ICICI bank.
5. Heard.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the District Commission has failed to appreciate the evidence available on record. The averment of the opposite party no.1/respondent no.1 that the said cheque was presented at 15:30 hrs is misrepresented. He further argued that facility of e-banking is available with the banks, therefore, the contention of the opposite party no.1-PNB that the cheque was to be sent by post is unacceptable. He thus argued that the impugned order deserves to be set-aside.
-4-7. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.1 & 2/respondent no.1 & 2 on the other hand supported the impugned order and argued that the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
8. The evidence on record suggests that the appellant presented the said cheque on 23.12.2016 at around 15:30 hrs. It is categorically submitted by the opposite party no.1-PNB that their branch is located in rural area of Bandakpur and the cheques presented before it are sent by registered post for clearance. The time for taking post is 2:00 pm and the appellant was also intimated about the same, but despite that, at appellant's persistence, the cheque was taken by the opposite party no.1-PNB and the time of 15:30 hrs was marked on the deposit slip. 24.12.2016 and 25.12.2016 were bank holidays and the cheque which was presented by the appellant could be sent for posting on 26.12.2016. The cheque dated 25.09.2016 had validity of three months. It is clear that by the time the cheque was received by the drawing branch, the validity period had expired.
9. We find that there has been no deficiency in service on part of opposite parties/respondents, when the said cheque was not cleared as it was presented after expiry of validity period. The District Commission has not committed any error or irregularity in holding that the appellant was having knowledge of validity period and he could have asked the fresh cheque instead of presenting the said cheque which was nearing its expiry.
-5-10. As regards the pleas of the appellant regarding e-banking and misrepresentation of time, which were not taken before the District Commission, they appear to be unsubstantiated and are not acceptable. It is pertinent to note that the appellant did not even controvert the submissions of the opposite parties before the District Commission.
11. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of a considered opinion that the District Commission has not committed any error or irregularity while passing the impugned order, which is hereby affirmed.
12. As a result, the appeal being devoid of any merit, is dismissed with no order as to costs.
(JUSTICE SHANTANU S. KEMKAR) (DR. MONIKA MALIK) PRESIDENT MEMBER