Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

-

1. Present appeal is filed under section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against order dated 17.04. Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order? Yes.

State Bank of India & Anr. Versus Keshav Thakur 2018 passed by Learned District Forum in consumer complaint No.46/2017 titled Keshav Thakur Versus State Bank of India & Anr.

Brief facts of consumer complaint:

2. Sh. Keshav Thakur complainant filed consumer complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 pleaded therein that one Shri Tushar Chaudhary issued cheque No.029689 to complainant for amount of Rs.200000/- (Two lac) which was payable by ICICI Bank Ltd. Sushant Lok Branch Gurgaon. It is pleaded that complainant presented the cheque to State Bank of India Bhojpur Branch Sunder Nagar District Mandi H.P for collection. It is pleaded that cheque in question was sent by opposite party No.2 to opposite party No.1 for collection on dated 03.04.2016 to its branch situated at Delhi. It is pleaded that cheque in question reached in branch of opposite party No.1 on dated 11.04.2016. It is pleaded that on dated 18.04.2018 opposite party No.1 rejected the cheque on the ground that cheque was outdated despite the fact that cheque reached in the office of opposite party No.1 on dated 11.04.2016 seven days prior to validity date. It is pleaded that opposite parties illegally and negligently withheld the cheque for seven days and did not present the cheque for encashment to drawee bank i.e. ICICI Bank Gurgaon. It is pleaded that due to deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties complainant could not sought State Bank of India & Anr. Versus Keshav Thakur relief under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act 1881. Complainant sought relief of Rs.200000/-(Two lac) alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of dishonour of cheque. In addition complainant sought relief of compensation to the tune of Rs.30000/-(Thirty thousand) for mental agony and harassment. In addition complainant sought relief of payment of Rs.20000/-(Twenty thousand) on account of litigation costs. Prayer for acceptance of consumer complaint sought.

2. Final order.

Findings upon point No.1 with reasons:

7. Complainant filed affidavit in evidence. There is recital in affidavit that Sh. Tushar Chaudhary issued cheque No.029689 to complainant for an amount of Rs.200000/-(Two lac) on dated 15.01.2016 which was payable at ICICI Bank Gurgaon. There is recital in affidavit that deponent present State Bank of India & Anr. Versus Keshav Thakur the cheque before opposite party No.2 for collection of the amount in his account. There is recital in affidavit that cheque in question was sent by opposite party No.2 to opposite party No.1 at Delhi on dated 03.04.2016. There is recital in affidavit that opposite party No.1 on dated 18.04.2016 rejected the cheque on the ground that cheque was outdated. There is recital in affidavit that complainant could not file complaint under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 against drawer. There is recital in affidavit that opposite parties have committed deficiency in service. State Commission has carefully perused all the annexures filed by complainant.

13. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellants that complainant has no locus standi and State Bank of India & Anr. Versus Keshav Thakur cause of action to file consumer complaint against opposite parties is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that cause of action accrued to complainant when opposite parties did not transmit cheque in question for encashment to drawee bank i.e. ICICI Bank within validity period of cheque in question. It is proved on record that opposite party No.2 sent cheque to opposite party No.1 on dated 03.04.2016 and it is also proved on record that cheque in question reached in office of opposite party No.1 for collection on 11.04.2016 and it is also proved on record that validity of cheque was till 15.04.2016. Opposite party No.1 did not send cheque for encashment to drawee bank i.e. ICICI Bank before expiry period of three months and kept the cheque in question in official custody till the validity of cheque stood expired. State Commission is of the opinion that validity of cheque stood expired due to laxity and inaction of opposite party No.1. It is proved on record that thereafter opposite party No.1 returned the cheque in question to complainant on the ground that it is outdated cheque and the word rejected outdated cheque was written by opposite party No.1 on dated 18.04.2016. It is also proved on record that cheque in question was received in the office of opposite party No.1 on 11.04.2016. It is proved on record that cheque in question was received in office of opposite party No.1 within period of its validity but opposite party No.1 State Bank of India & Anr. Versus Keshav Thakur kept the cheque in question in non-action mode till expiry of its validity. State Commission is of the opinion that opposite parties could not be allowed to take benefit of its own wrongs and laxity. See 2006(IV) CPJ 274 NC titled P.S. Sawhney Versus Canara Bank & Anr. See 2006(2) CPJ 345 NC titled State Bank of Mysore & Anr. Versus K. Vasanth Kumar & Anr.

Point No.2: Final Order

15. In view of findings upon point No.1 above appeal is dismissed. Order passed by learned District Forum is affirmed. Parties are left to bear their own litigation costs before State Commission. Cheque No.029689 dated 15.01.2016 and endorsement of appellants' bank dated 18.04.2016 whereby appellants' bank rejected the cheque in question on the ground of outdated cheque shall form part and parcel of order. File of learned District Forum alongwith certified copy of order be sent back forthwith and file of State Commission be consigned to record room after due completion forthwith. Certified copy of order be transmitted to parties forthwith free of costs strictly as per rules. Appeal is disposed of. Pending application(s) if any also disposed of.