State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Punjab National Bank vs Sh. Manoj Kumar on 7 January, 2020
Daily Order IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Arguments :07.01.2020 Date of Decision : 10.01.2020 FIRST APPEAL NO.384/2015 In the matter of: Punjab National Bank, Bo-Tropical Building, H-22 Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001. .....Appellant Versus Shri Manoj Kumar, S/o. Shri Ram Prasad, R/o. A-154, Gali No.27, South Gamri, Som Bazar, Khauri, 4 ½ Pusta, Delhi-110053. .........Respondent CORAM Hon'ble Sh. O. P. Gupta, Member (Judicial) 1. Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes/No Shri O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial) JUDGEMENT
The OP has come in the present appeal against exparte judgement dated 05.06.15 passed by District Forum allowing the complaint and directing the appellant to return the cheques and pay Rs.35,000/- as harassment and litigation expenses as well as deliberately detaining cheques not sent for clearing with collusion of complainant.
The facts which can be gathered from the impugned order are that complainant/ respondent herein had a saving bank account with the appellant, he deposited two cheques for Rs.8 lakhs and Rs.7 lakhs drawn on Standard Chartered Bank. The same were dishonoured vide memos dated 01.06.10 and 04.06.10 with the reasons 'fund insufficient'. The complainant approached drawer of the cheque who had issued the same, the drawer asked him to deposit the same again and assured that they would be encashed. Complainant again deposited those cheques on 26.07.10 and 27.07.10 but OP did not send the same in clearing. On inquiry OP/ appellant herein intimated that the drawer had lodged FIR against the complainant but failed to provide detailed reasons. Legal notice was sent on 03.08.10.
The impugned order recites that notice was served and OP was proceeded exparte on 04.04.11. The District Forum concluded that OP mislead the complainant that FIR was lodged against him, as per letter dated 09.08.10 to conceal its mistake / blunder for protecting the drawer of the cheque. The OP did not conduct any inquiry nor furnished any concrete details to the complainant/ nor returned the cheques to the complainant.
The respondent was served for 30.08.17 but did not appear. Hence it has preceded exparte.
I have gone through the material on record and heard the arguments advanced by counsel for appellant. The impugned order does not recite the mode how the appellant was served. The plea of the appellant is that he was never served. Since respondent has not turned up to convert the plea of the appellant, there is no reason to disbelieve the appellant that it was not served.
Once it is held that appellant was not served, principle of natural justice require that appellant should get an opportunity to defend itself.
Moreover I may mention that counsel for the appellant pointed out and rightly so that complainant never disclosed before the District Forum that he was employee of drawer of the cheque, he had misused the blank cheques got signed by him from his employer, the employer had already filed a complaint in the court of Ld. ACMM Patiala House, New Delhi in 2011 itself. Copy of said complaint is placed at pages 34 to 41 of the appeal file. That compels me to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back for decision after hearing the appellant.
In view of the above discussion the appeal is accepted, impugned order is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the District Forum to decide the same again after giving an opprunity to the appellant/ OP. Appellant is directed to appear before the District Forum on 18.02.20.
One copy of the order sent to District Forum for information. District Forum would issue notice to complainant before proceeding further.
Copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.
One copy of the order be sent to District Forum for information.
File be consigned to record room.
(O.P. GUPTA) MEMBER (JUDICIAL)